Evening journal., 1917-06-12
some HAVE RIGHT
TO Sell LIQUORS
less Than Quart
ICnnIlnnnd frnn Elrsl pngel

Deputy Attorney General Green repre-
sented the State.
Tho courts decision was as follows
The questions OF law arising in this
case were directed by the Court of Cen
cral Sessions W be heard by the Court In
Banc upon tho following agreed state
mat OF facts.
FcNaowill. G. j., delivering the opinion
of Tho court;
The question TO be determined in this
case Is not whether law making il
unlawful to sell Intoxicating liquor
would revoke license for such sale is-
sued before the enactment of the law.
In such case Il IS clearly the inten-
tion OF the Legislature that liquor
shall not be sold at all. Therefore,
all the cases cited by the State, In
which the sale was made unlawful. /
are not applicable TO the present case .
whore the statute which authorized .
the Issuance OF the license was mere
ly repealed In all the States cases,
except the Pennsylvania County Court
case. the sale was expressly made un-
lawful. and IN tho excepted case there
was this unusual feature. viz; The
license of the defendant only author
ICED him TO sell I'm accordance with
the law OF the State "as Il may exist
at the time OF the sale"
Some OF the language quoted by the
State from certain text-writers Is very
general and n intended TO apply 10
such case as the present one does
not appear 90 be supported by the au-
thorities cited
The text must be based upon stat
utes or constitutional provisions
which expressly made the sale unlaw-
! ful: and this is evident from more
particular statements made by the
writer's referred TO.
In Woolley and Thornton Section
53i IL IS raid. "Tho passage and
adoption OF q constitutional or statu-
tory provision by which the sale of
/ intoxicating liquor is prohibited. will
have the effect of repeating by impli-
/ Gallon an laws authorizing the is
suance of licenses and OF annulling
those which may have been issued
previously etc.
Black employs similar language.
but both writer's also make general
statements respecting the effect OF a
repeal OF a statute which apparently
supports the contention of the State.
lt is not questioned that the Logis-
lature may revoke license pre-
uously given for the sale OF intoxicat-
ing liquor. because such license is
only a privilege: but i'm order that a
statute shall have that effect, it must
be clear that such was the Leg sla-
tive intent. When the later statute
makes Il unlawful to sell intoxicating
|, liquor at all. or unless the licensee
, procures further license or complies
with some add tional requirement.
, there can be no question about the in
, tent. but when the statute merely re-
. peals the law which authorized the is
4 suance OF license for the sale OF
!. liquor In particular way, as In the
e present case. the legal effect is only
4 to prevent the issuance OF any other
licenses OF the same kind.
X The defendant had a license 10 sci
l. Intoxicating liquor 10 be drunk ol
" the premises. and the general Law
ID which authorized the issuance or sucl
license was not repealed Because by
" had that license he was entitled @
ID receive from the clerk Of the peace al
p additional license 10 sell liquor 10 bl
y drunk on the premises.
The act in question did not, there.
fore, take away the defendants right
! 10 sell intoxicating liquor, but merely
. repealed the section OF the liquor law
that authorized the issuance OF the
, additional license. There is nothing
, in the repeating act 10 show that it
was intended TO have any other effect
than to prevent the clerk OF the
] peace from issuing any other licenses
under the act repealed
While the act In question is not
D retroactive In terms. II would un-
questionably have that effect If given
the construction contended for by the
state: and the law Is well settled
that an act of the Legislature viii not
be held to operate retrospectvely un.
less the legislative intention that 4
shall have such operation be clearly
shown. Cooley's Con. Lin. $40.
r. The court are OF the opinion tina
z the special license issued 20 the de
fendant by the clerk Of the peace o
,e New Castle county. on the fourteenu
r.. day OF March, 1917, authorizing hin
ad 10 sell Intoxicating liquors In les
y. quantities than one court 20 be drum
Nv off the premises, Is good and vail
~ for a period of one year from th
4. date of the issuance thereof.
q. II Is ordered that the opinion be an
n the same IS certified to the Court q
es General Sessions
NV JAMES PENNEW1LL, c. J.
sr. WM. II. BOYCE. j.
m HERBERT L. RICE, ].