Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial. (Wilmington, Del.) 1878-1928, 1920-03-02
JAMAICA GINGER
Con tinued from page /


Intoxicating liquors" wherever used II
this Act, shall bc construed to include an,
distilled, malt, spirituous, vinous, fer
mcnted or alcoholic liquor and all alcoho
lie liquids containing 90 much ms onc-hal
of one per centum of alcohol by volume
and compounds whether proprietary
patented or not, which arc potable O
capable of being used AS a beverage.
Section prohibits the manufacturing
scllingsor furnishing intoxicating liquor
within the limits OF this State SO Ion,
as the 18th Amendment To the Constitu
ton of the United States of America is IL
effect, except as provided in said Act.
The only provision in said Act for thu
selling of Intoxicating liquors OF any kline
is By druggist, and he shall only sci
after permit is granted by the Attorne,
General
As the law now stands, Intoxicating
liquors, as defined in this Act excepting
certain medicines hereafter referred to-
can only be sold by druggists after 6
permit is granted by the Attorne,
General.
The question here raised is whether oil
not the selling of intoxicating liquors IN
violation of Chapter $50 is a crime that
can be punished by this Court.
The language Of the Constitution CIV
ing this Court jurisdiction is retailing
or selling without licenses, or on Sunday
or to minors, wine. rum, brandy, gin,
whisky or spirituous or vinous liquors,
contrary to law"
This language of the Constitution
would indicate that the words without
license, or on Sunday. or to minors
are merely descriptive of what is CON
trary to law" The language amounts to
the same thing as saying Retailing or
selling illegally"
The language OF the statute, Section
2l2l, gives the Court jurisdiction of "all
violations of law with respect to sales
without license of Intoxicating liquors OF
every kind" This is no more than saying
"All illegal sales of intoxicating liquors.
When the law legalized the sale of
Intoxicating liquors by granting license,
and prohibited the sale of liquors by all
who did not have q license, the best
way it could describe an illegal sale was
to use the words without license.
If the Legislature takes away the license
and prohibits sale of any kind IL does
not change the character of an illegal
sale 1t simply does away with one class
of sales, namely, legal sales, and makes
all sales Illegal.
But chapter 239, which was passed for
the purpose of prohibiting the liquor
traffic, does, nevertheless, provide for the
granting of license. True, the statute
calls it n permit, but it can't be said that
man who has 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 OBJ
tanning the license.
/ think, therefore, that it may be said
a sale of intoxicating liquor in violation of
this statute is actually a sale without
license, though doubt whether il be neces-
sary for the information to allege so much
as that.
If chapter 23e did nothing more than
prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors,
would have but little doubt about this
question of jurisdiction.
Section 2I21 of the Revised Code is a
provision of the statute which gives to
this court exclusive and original jurisdic-
ton In certain matters including the sale
OF intoxicating liquors without a license.
There is no statute which takes away this
jurisdiction unless ii can be said that it is
done indirectly by chapter 239 above men,
toned.
There are certain provisions of this
chapter which make IL so awkward for this
court to take jurisdiction that from prac-
teal standpoint it would seem better TO
leave the whole provisions of tie statute
to be administered by the Court of Gem
eral Sessions.
Section II provides that any and all
OF these crimes may be charged in single
indictment. This court would clearly not
have jurisdiction in all Of them, and in
deed. | am not certain that II would have
jurisdiction in any more than the one
crime of selling intoxicating liquors. The
practical effect would be, if this court
has jurisdiction OF the Illegal selling of in
toxicating liquors, that this court would
punish for that one otfense and the Judge
of this court would be compelled to hold
the defendants charged with practically
/: II other offenses under this statute for the
Court OF General Sessions, although the
same punishment is provided for each of
these crimes.
Did the Legislature intend that this
court should have jurisdiction of one and
that the Court of General Sessions should
have jurisdiction of all others? This fact
has caused me to hesitate In holding that
this court has jurisdiction.
But where the Legislature has express
" given jurisdiction to an inferior court,
should it be held that that jurisdiction has
been taken away by any such indirect
method as this? | think not. Ny con-
clusion, therefore, Is that this court has
jurisdiction of Illegal sales of intoxicating
liquors under chapter 239, volume 80,
laws of Delaware.
In the two cases which have been argued
and are now being considered, it appears
that the defendant Garfnle, who is
charged with selling jamaica ginger, was
2 general merchant holding q general
merchants license. II is commended that
under section Is Of chapter 239, he is
exempt, and has, therefore, committed no
crime. The language of the material part
Of that section is as follows:
Nothing in this act shall prevent the
possession or sale of denatured alcohol or
rum intended for use only in the
or mechanical arts, or to prevent
the sale and keeping and storing for sale
by druggists and general merchants or
others duly licensed by existing laws Of
any medicinal preparations manufactured
in accordance with formulas prescribed by
the United States Pharmacopnia and
Formulary, or TO prevent the
and sale of toilet, medicinal
or antiseptic preparations and solutions
and upon the outside of each bottle, or
box, or package OF which is printed In
English conspicuously and legibly and
clearly the quantity by volume of alcohol
in such preparations.s
The testimony offered in this case was
that the witness purchased jamaica
ginger. An expert witness for the State
testified on cross-examination that it was
3 "medicinal preparation manufactured