The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1916-06-03
Of
LIQUOR RULING
OF HIGH COURT
Reasons Are Set Forth Why the
Famous Injunction is
Not Lawful.

Tho syllabus Of tho opinion OF tho
state supreme court holding that Ia
boiled liquor is lawful baggage. which
was written by Judge Poffvrbargor.
is "a follows
!, Chapter IL. acts. 1918. as
amended by chapter !. acts. 1919,
chapter S2A, Code. Barnes's Handy
Edition. does not expressly OF impll.
rdly inhibit common carriers from
transportation OF passengers carry
inr with thom, In their own porsnnpl
custody. care and control. packages
of intoxicating liquors. labeled In nc
cordancc with the requirement Sof
section ~ OF said chapter
"2 Section sovon Of said chapter
impllcdly authorizes such transpur.
,ation, by tho use OF terms from
which legislative intent to do so Is
plainly Inforablc. and section 81
thereof expressly recognizing tho
common law right Of citizen to
bring intoxicating liQuorE into the
state. for his personal use. and pro-
scrihinE the manner OF doing 30.
without denying to him tho use Of
any OF the means OF travel ordinarily
available and employed. at the date
OF tho passage OF the act. impliadly
authorizes the use Of such methods
of travel in tho carriage Of such
liquors.
3. An express statutory grant Of
right, power or privilege. or ox-
ccption OF a previous existing one,
IN the absence OF any prescription OF
tho method OF exercise or enjoyment
thereof. implicitly carries with II
right to make use nf all tho ordinary
methods and monns of such exercise
or enjoyment.
-. a bill praying an Injunction
against transportation OF all persons
no carrying Intoxicating liquors. by n
common carrier. on the ground that
some OF them make unlawful usa OF
liquors so brought into the state by
them, and not charging the rendition
OF aid and assistance of any partiCu-
lar person In his violations Of tho
prohibition laws. by the common
carrier proceeded against. raises no
question aH to right IN the stnto
to cniOin such transportation as 10
particular individuals.
20 In the absence or = statute
comforting II. equity has no jurisdic-
tIon to abRtC public nuisance,
either civil or criminal. at tho in
stance OF mn Individual or the state.
not affecting or lnjurinE the enjoy
mcnt Of property or other personal
rights. In junction ia not remedy
for the enforcement of,Oriminal laws
generally.
80 Under the authority to nbato
nuiBances. conferred by section u
and section II. chapter 32A, Barnes's
Code, the injunction goes primarily
against places In which the prohibit
ton laws are habitunlly violated and
incidentally against persons whO
maintain such places Such author
lty does not extend to violations OF
the prohibition laws generally or In
ways other than those designated in
said sections. Neither said sections
nor any other law confcrB upon
courts OF equity. general power to
govern the state by injunction. inso-
far as It's laws pertain to tho subject
OF intoxicating liquors.
~. In those instances In which in
junction lies to prevent conduct
amounting to nuisance abatable by
such remedy. 1t IL limited to unlaw-
tul acts and is not available rs n
means Of prevention OF lawful acts
Only so much Of such conduct as is
unlawful can be restrained"
The decree OF the Mineral county
circuit court against the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Company was re-
versed, tho demurrer of the defend
ant TO tho bill sustained. and the
cause was remanded with leave to
amend the bill.
IN closing the opinion In the case,
the court sets forth that AS the acts
alleged in the bill are not contrary
10 the laws OF this state. 1t is wholly
unnecessary to discuss the Webb
Kenyon law II certainly adds moth
Ing to the statute OF any state. Nor
Is II necessary to attempt TO define
the rights OF the defendant as an in.
terstatc carrier. respecting intoxi-
eating liquors. II is not complr ming
of the statute as It is here CON
strued."
--s---- -----