Case Name: CLEMENT, State Excise Com'r, v. FOUR BARRELS OF BEER
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-01
Citations: 122 N.Y.S. 441
Docket Number: 
Parties: CLEMENT, State Excise Com’r, v. FOUR BARRELS OF BEER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 122
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
(66 Misc. Rep. 1.)
CLEMENT, State Excise Com’r, v. FOUR BARRELS OF BEER.
(Supreme Court, Trial Term, Oneida County.
January, 1910.)
1. Constitutional Law (§ 319 )—Due Process of Law—Seizure of Liquors.
As Liquor Tax Law (Laws 1909, c. 39 [Consol. Laws, c. 34]) § 33, makes provision for due trial of the right to seize liquors, seizure and confiscation under the provisions therein prescribed are takings by due process of law. •
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Constitutional Law, Dec. Dig. § 319. ]
2. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 245 )—Police Power—Seizure of Liquors.
Liquor Tax Law (Laws 1909, c. 39 [Consol. Laws, c. 34]) § 33, providing for the seizure and confiscation of liquors, is a legitimate exercise of the police power.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Dec. Dig. § 245. ]
Proceedings by Maynard N. Clement, State Commissioner of Excise, against four barrels of beer and other liquors; Arnold Hunzicker, answering defendant. Judgment for plaintiff.
Robert J. Fish, for plaintiff.
A. C. Woodruff, for defendant,
For other cases see same topic & § nvmbeb in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
ROGERS, J.
After a careful study of the elaborate and learned briefs of the respective counsel, and the authorities therein cited, and bearing in mind the rules (a) that every presumption is to be indulged in favor of a statute, and (b) that a trial court should hesitate to pro nounce.:a .statute unconstitutional, I have, for the purpose of this trial, concluded:
(1) That section 33 of the liquor tax law (Laws 1909, c. 39) makes provision for due trial of the right to seize liquors, and that seizure and confiscation, as and pursuant to the provisions therein prescribed, are takings by-"due process of law."
(2) That said statute is a legitimate exercise by the Legislature of the police power inherent in a sovereign state.
(3) That the statute is not in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution, and
(4) That the plaintiff is entitled to judgment according to the prayer of the complaint.
Judgment for plaintiff.