The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-04-09
H-No0TE0 QUESTION
HE'LL CONSTITUTIONAL
Woman Must Re Head of Family In
Order to Have liquor Ia Her
Possession.
1lIUmas y. Whitehead, Attorney In
tine Department OF Prohibition,
Makes Statement With Reference
to Cases In Supreme Court.

The supreme courts OF appeals of
Virginia has recently, by refusing
wrts OF error in two cases involving
violations of the Mapp law. estab-
| lished the consttutionality OF much
mooted questions raised by that
statute. They are that no woman,
may order, receive or have in her
possession ardent spirits and that
lit is unlawful for a person TO bring
into the state of Virginia, for use in
ardent spirits In his personal baggage,
within period of thirty days
Thomas y. Whitehead, attorney in
the department OF prohibition. has
made the following statement in
reference to the cases:
The case OF Blanche Wilson
against the commonwealth of Tir.
ginia. which came up TO the supreme
court of appeals from the city of
Newport News. and In which writ of
error WAS refused. has sustained a
very important section of the Mapp
+ bill to wit section A.. This decision
is of peculiar interest because at tho
February term of the corporation
court OF Lynchburg. Judge Christian,
, OF that court, decided that section
~ was unconstitutional, The section
iS as tt1itt5tv75.- 4 + shall he unlawful
for any female 10 order, receive or
have IN her possession any ardent
spirits, except as permitted in this
act, and not then unless she is the
head OF a family. and for her own
Use In bona fidc home
History of Case.
The grand jury OF the city of
( Newport News indicted Blanche VIII
son. and in this indictment there were
three counts drawn. the third and
most important or which was the fol-
lowing words. and the jurors afore-
said. rpon their oath aforesaid. do
further present that Blanche Wilson,
female. within one year next prior
/ 10 the finding OF this Indictment to
wit since the first day Of November.
1916. in thc said city. did unlawfully
order. receive and have in her pos
session ardent spirits contrary to law.
In such cases herein provided. she
not being the head Of "a family. and
the said ardent spirits not then and
there being for her own use In n
bona fidc home. against the peace and
dignity Of the mmonwealth Of FIr-
einia
Upon trial the jury found the de-
fendant guilty under the first and
third counts nf tho indictment, and
fixed her punishment on each count
AT one month in the city Jail, and n
fine Of $50. Upon this conviction she
nled her petition in the supreme
coart. PRAYING for writ of error
Z =
WIS r. fused IN the petition flied by
blanche Wilson she made the claim
that section ~ vas unconstitutional.
In refusing said writ the court Sus-
tanned the conSltutionalitv Of sec
ton - thereby yevokiuE the de-
cjslou og Judge Christian as hereto
" fore mentioned. This decision is very
important hecause II puts al rest the
murh-mooted question as to whether
( or not a woman who il not the head
! ~ "a family can order receive or have
/ IN her possession ardent spirits"
~ 10 Ono Quart Question.
Another case 81 Importance" said
+ MFR Whitehead is the enc az w. E.
Wiley against tho commonwealth.
which came up 10 the supreme court
( from tho corporation court ~ Lynch
+ burg. and involved the question rs
to whether the legislature had the
! uoNcr 10 limit tho quantity Of ardent
+ spirits brought into the state Tor per-
sonal usc. Wiley was indicted for
bringing FIVE quarts Of ardent spirits
in his personal baggage from Wash
ington 10 Lynchhurg for his personal
use. and no pretcnse was made that
II was brought for any other purpose.
/ He was convicted IN the corporation
hcourt. and fled his petition as be-
I fore mentioned,
/ I'm said petition Wiley. through his
counsel attacks section 30 of the
Mapn law. which is the section deal
, ing with the bringing into the state
OF ardent spirits The court refused
+ ITO WITH IF rrrvrt-, hereby s-tistail4R i.
said section This is Of peculiar In
.torcst to the profession aud the pub
, 1ic generally. because in a lengthy
article written hy Mr.. 7. +, BENSON.
a. charlottesville, and published in
the Virginia Law REGISTER for March.
1917. Mr. Benson attacks tho consti-
tut4cnalItv of said section. and the
( said article is copied verbatim by the
attorney for Wiley. In his petition.
And The question is now finally set
tied that il IS unlawful for a person
to bring into this state for use in
/ this state more than enc quart Of ar
/ dent spirits in his personal baggage.
within a period Of thirty days. This
question has been giving the courts
( throughout the state a good deal or
trouble and We feel gratified that the
sanc has been passed on 80 quick