Evening journal., 1920-03-02

kind 10 does not change the character
OF an illegal sale. II simply does away
with one class OF sales, namely. legal
sales and makes all saies illegal.
but Chapter 239, which was passed
for the purpose OF prohibiting the
liquor traffic, does. nevertheless, pro-
vide for the granting OF license. True,
the statute calls IT permit, but II can't
be said that man who has a permit
under the law TO sell intoxicating
liquors is not licensed to sell It. The
difference between the new statute and
the old is the method OF obtaining the
license.
Il think. therefore, that IL may be
said a sale Of intoxicating liquor In
violation OF this statute is actually a
sale without license, though ] doubt
whether 1t be necessary for the In
formation TO allege so much as that.
"lf Chapter 239 did nothing more
than prohibit the sale Of intoxicating
liquors, l would have but little doubt
about this question Of jurisdiction.
section 2l2i Of the Revised Code is
provision OF the statute which gives
10 this court exclusive and original
Jurisdiction in certain matters includ-
ng the sale OF intoxicating liquors
without a license. There Is no statute
which takes away this jurisdiction un-
less IL can be said that IL IS done in
directly by Chapter 239 above men
toned.
There are certain provisions OF this
Chapter which make It so awkward
for this Court TO take jurisdiction that
| from a practical standpoint II would
seem better TO leave Tile whole pro-
visions OF the statute 10 be adminis-
tered by the Court Of General Ses-
sions.
section 81 OF the Act provides as
follows: In any afldavit or indictment
for the violation OF this Act separate
/ effenses may be united and the defend
ant may be tried on an OF the separate
offenses at one trial and the cumu-
I lative penalty for each offense may be
imposed by the court"
There are many crimes set forth in
this Act Sections 3. 4, "a, f6, IS and
I 70 define separate and distinct offenses
! and several sections have in them more
han one crime.
Section 2i provides that any aud al
n OF these crimes may be charged In q
single Indictment This Court woulC
clearly not have jurisdiction In all oi
4 them, and indeed, ! am not certain
that - would have jurisdiction In any
more than the one crime OF selling in
toxlcating liquors. The practica
effect woud be. II this Court hes iuris
diction OF the Illegal selling Of intox
icating liquors, that this Court would
punsh for that one offense and th'
Judge Of this Court would be com
PEELED to bold the defendants charge,
with practically all other Offensei
under this statute for the Court o
General Sessions, although the sam
punishment is provided for In each o
these crimes.
did TIE Legislature intend that thi
Court should have Jurisdiction OF on
and that the Court OF General Session
should have Jurisdiction OF all others
This fact has caused me 10 hesitate II
holding that this Court has Jurisdiction
But where the Legislature has ex
pressly. given jurisdiction TO an lnferiO
court, should Il be held that that jur
ANAAAAlNll NNN nINn NdhNn away UI I'll
such indirect method as this7 ! thin
not. My conclusion, therefore, Is tha
this Court has Jurisdiction OF illega
sales OF intoxicating liquors under chap
ter 339, volume 30. Laws Of Delaware.
p in the two cases which have bee
b argued and are now being considered
It appears that the defendant Garnnkle
= who Is charged with selling iamalc
ginger. was general merchant holdln
+ a general merchants license. Il is con
tended that under section i3 OF chapte
239 he is exempt. and has, therefore
5 committed no crime. The language O
the material part OF that section is a
] follows:
Nothing in this Act shall prever
J the possession or sale Of denaiured a
. cohol OF denaiured rum intended fc
r use only in the industrial or mechan
cal arts, or TO prevent the sale an
? keeping and storing for sale by drus
{ gists and genral merchants or other
, duly licensed by existing laws OF an
medicinal preparations manufactured
S accordance with formulas prescribe
r by The United States Pharmacopoel
and National Formulary. or to preveT
q ithe manufacture and sale OF toilet, M
] dlcinal or antlseptic preparations an
5 solutions and upon the outside OF eac
$ bottle OF box, or package OF which
D printed in English cOnspicuously an
g legibly and clearly the quantity by va
ume Of alcOhol in such preparations
I 1.-The testimony offered In this css
was that the witness purchased j
s malca ginger. An expert witness Il
g l. the State testified on crOss-examinatic
that it was a medicinal preparatio
! manufactured In accordance with form
ulas prescribed by the United Stat
Pharmacopoeia and National FormI
| larry"
at appears from the testimony IN
The defndant was a general merchai
having a license. In view OF the e.
emptlon cOntslned In Section i3 abo'
quoted. can IL be said that he has con
mltted any crime2
IN other words. Is there anythir
70 prevent medicinal preparations mai
ufactured In accordance with the form
/ ulas prescribed by the u. s. p. from b.
ing sold for beverage purposes regsr'
| less OF the quantity OF alcohol fhe
contain?
.sThe Federal Act. which e1emp
such medical Preparations, distinct
provides that they shall not be sold K
beverage purposes. but there appears
| be no such provision OF this statute.
ut was contended by the state TINS
chapter 239 had not repealed the ol
liquor laws, and that It was unlawfI
under the old laws TO sell such medic
lnal preparations for beverage pul