Evening star., 1954-01-04
COD Delivery
0fLiquor May
eI||ega|
Maryland Law
Not Specific on Issue
Of Outside Payment

COD. liquor deliveries may
be illegal in Maryland.
A State law, apparently in
tended to authorize retail de-
lverieS to consumers, is ambigu-
Gus, authorities agree.
Recognizing that doubt exists,
the Prince Georges County Leg
islative delegation tried to add
a clarifying amendment at the
General AsSembly'S last session.
The bill died in committee, but
another attempt is planned.
Believes Deliveries Lawful.
The Prince Georges Liquor
Board holds that county-licensed
liquor dealers may legally make
CO. D. deliveries within the
county. The State attorney gen.
erals Office is inclined to believe
that such deliveries are lawful
in all subdivisions of the State
where liquor is legally sold by
dealers.
In Montgomery County. liquor
Is sold only in county-operated
dispensaries which do not deliver
retail merchandise. Beer and
light wines are delivered by Ii
censed dealers but only on a
cash basis.
In most Maryland jurisdic-
tions, liquor can be sold only for
cash.
The same is true in the Dis
trict, where dealers deliver a
large percentage of their sales
to homes.
Herbert K. Schollenberger. a
member of the District ABC
Board. said the corporation
counsel's Office ruled in 1884 that
such deliveries are legal in
Washington. provided liquors
are not turned over to under
age or intoxicated persons.
Uncertain on COD. Deliveries
Spokesman for the Maryland
attorney general and the Prince
Georges Liquor Board concede
there is uncertainty as to whether
c. o. D. deliveries are lawful,
especially in areas where sale Of
liquors is prohibited or restricted.
The City of Hyattsville is in
the latter category. There, State
law permits distribution of beer
and light wine but prohibits the
sale or giving away of hard
liquors.
At issue is the question Of
whether the Maryland, statute,
apparently intended to legalfze
C.. o. D. deliveries, is sufficiently
explicit to supersede old laws
holding that ownership of goods
passes from buyer to seller at
the place where the sale is
conSummated.
That means, under the old law,
that title passes when and where
goods and money are transferred.
The hitch is that retail liquor
dealers are not licensed to sell
anywhere but at the address
specified on their licenses.
Liquor dealers can. authorities
agree, deliver lawfully to con-
sumers when goods are paid for
in their stores, or they can send
them C. o. D. by common car
rier or the buyers personal
agent. The doubt arises when
the dealer or his agent makes
the delivery.
Has Doubt of LawfulneSs.
Assistant State Attorney Cen
eral Giles Parker said he believes
C. o. D. liquor deliveries within
counties of the State by persons
licensed within those counties is
legal in most instances. But he
expressed doubt as to their law
fulness in situations such as that
at Hyattsville.
However, Mr.. Parker said,
"there definitely is a question as
to whether retailers can legally
deliver alcoholic beverages on
C. o. D. basis"
He said many rulings have
been made at his Office on liquor
problems but could not readily
find one that seemed to fit the
current question.
Mr.. Parker emphasized that
his remarks were not to be con-
strued as a formal ruling but
rather as an off-hand opinion
given after cursory examination
of the points involved.
Ernest A. LovelesS,- counsel to
the Prince Georges Liquor Board,
holds that most liquor deliveries
in the county are legal. He bases
his conclusion on the premises
that the Legislature intended to
authorize them, even If it did not
make its intent clear.
But as to the Hyattsville sit
uation," said Mr.. Loveless, that
is an entirely different matter
and one that warrants study and
investigation"
Question Posed BY Lawyer.
A veteran Hyattsville attorney
who is a past president of the
Prince Georges County Bar As
sociation, posed the question. He
contends COD. deliveries, either
within counties or across bound
aries, are law violations because
the place of delivery becomes
the place of sale.
Supporting this argument, he
cited the case of George Lochnar
versus the State of Maryland.
MIR. Lochnar, an employe of a
Baltimore City liquor dealer, was
convicted by jury Of delivering
beer from his employers stock
to a customer in Baltimore
County. He appealed.
The Appellate Court in affirm
ing the conviction said: "The
rule contended for by the State
that, where the seller of intox-
icating liquors delivers them in
person. or by his agent to the