Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1914-12-08
COURT Defines
THE LIQUOR LAW
Municipal Tribunal Without
Jurisdiction in Cases In
volving License Holders
DENNIS CASE
BRINGS THE RULING


ant decision in the case OF Harry
Dennis on an appeal from the judg-
ment of the Municipal Court, Dennis
having been convicted in that court
fined 500 and costs and ordered inn
prisoned for one month on charge
of selling liquor without license.
He was not in the liquor business.
The court laid down two important
rulings today:
First-That the Municipal Court
has jurisdiction only in cases OF per-
sons who are not liquor license hold
ers who are accused of selling liquor
illegally.
Second-The Municipal Court has
no jurisdiction in cases of alleged IL
legal LIQUOR sales against persons
who hold State liquor licenses, such
jurisdiction being vested in the Court
of General Sessions.
Dennis conviction In City Court
was affirmed by the Superior Court.
Following the handing down OF the
cninion ATTORNEY General Wolcott said
he believed Il would not be necessary
70 have an argument in the cases OF
Muliin and other dealers who were
convicted by Judge Churchman In City
Court either of maintaining two bars
under one license, or Of selling In bot
fles liouor to be drunk off the prem
ises without having a special license.
Under the decision of the State
Court today Il is believed the City
Court has no jurisdiction In the cases
of the dealers who were fined by Judge
Churchman, as all were licensed deal
ers. Their conviction In City Court
II is thought. will be set aside by to
days ruling.
The opinion Of the court today is:
Pennewin. G. j., delivering the opin-
ION of the courts
This Il a certorari 10 the Municipal
Court for the city Of Wilmington. The
defendant was convicted in said court
Of selling intoxicating liquor without a
license, and sentenced TO pay fine OF
one hundred dollars and to be impris-
oned for one month
This sentence was imposed under sec
ton IL, chapter 3s4 volume l6, Laws OF
Delaware REV. Code 4l9) passed April
s, 1881, which provides as follows
ssEvery violation of any provision OF
this act, OF of any other act regulating
the sale Of intoxicating liquors, shall be
a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction
thereof, where no other specific penalty
is herein provided, the offender shall pay
a fine Of one hundred dollars, and costs
of prosecution; and shall be imprisoned
not less than one nor more than six
months; and II license shall also for
felt his license Section Of said act
adds TO the Judgment of the court, as
further penalty-the suppression Of the
business, etc.
The vital question in this case. and
the only one argued before this court
IS whether the court below had au-
thority to sentence the defendant I'M
der Section II of the Act of 1881.
II was denied by the defendant that
the Municipal Court had Jurisdiction
of the case, but he contends that sem
tence could not be imposed under Sec
ton II, because. the Municipal Court
has no means of enforcing the entire
penalty therein prescribed by certain
offenders; and under the constitution
Of this State the Municipal Court has
no power TO impose any penalties
other than fine and imprisonment
II is insisted that even though the
sentence imposed was only fine and
Imprisonment, and the offender was
not a licensee. nevertheless the Mu-
nicipal Court could not sentence I'M
der a law which prescribes for some Of
tenders an additional penalty that the
Municipal Court could not enforce. And
the reason given for such contention
Is. that II was the manifest intent
Of the legislature that sentence should
be imposed under section II, only by
a court that had the power to enforce
the penalty In every case. and not
by an Inferior court which had not
such power.
The question raised Is a very inn
portant one both to the Municipal
Court and 10 persons convicted IN that
court for violations Of the liquor law
1t IS very certain that Section II
means something. otherwise Il would
not have been passed. Its real mean
ing and application is a question that
has never been distinctly raised be-
fore. II was not raised nor consider
ed in State VS.. Mundy / Boyce 40.
The only question in that case. as the
court stated, was whether the offense
charged was sale without a license.
Under what statute sentence should
be imposed was not considered.
All that the court is required to de-
termine now is whether the Municipal
Court can. under Section IL, impose
sentence upon an offender who is not
a licensee.
A careful examination of Section II.
taken in connection with Section 9. of
the same act, discloses the purpose of
the legislature to provide penalties for
two classes of offenders, "a Those
who are not licensees, and co Those
who are licensees.
The Municipal Court has sole and
exclusive jurisdiction Of the first
class, in the city OF Wilmington. ana
the penalties prescribed for such Of
tenders are fine and Imprisonment
only, the imposition of which are
clearly within the constitutional now
er of an inferior court.
We think it is a fair and necessary
construction Of Section IL 70 hold tina,
the penalties prescribed therein foi
offenders who are not licensees shall
be imposed by the court having iuris-
dicuon thereof, TO wit, the Municipal
Court
We realize that this decision might
IN view Of the case of State VS.. Mundy
leave in some confusion the question
who are licensees? The question in
the Mundy case, as already stated. wa,
whether the offense was a sale with.
out license: the question under tbi,
decision viii be-is the offender a N
censee? If he is. the Municipal Cour
cannot impose sentence under Sec
ton IL, because il has not the powe