Majority
Headnote
Excise—Repeal.The charge in the indictment was that Vosburgh at town being a town was not at the time of such sale a license granted and issued permitting the sale of such strong and spirituous liquors, wine ale or beer in quantities less than five gallons at a time, did without lawful authority, unlawfully and wilfully sell and deliver in quantities of five gallons and upwards at a time, strong and spirituous liquors, wine, ale and beer” (naming the person to whom such sale was made) “ contrary to the statute in such case made and provided."
The defendant demurred to the indictment on the grounds: (1) That the facts stated in it did not constitute a crime. (2) That the indictment contained in it facts constituting a justification for "’the acts charged. ■
The court having overruled the demurrer and denied motion of the defendant (who had refused to plead to the indictment) in arrest of judgment, directed judgment that he pay a fine of $100 and stand committed until paid. Exceptions were taken by the defendant.
The indictment was founded upon the statute which provides that “ It shall not be lawful to sell strong or spirituous liquors, wine, ale or beer in quantities of five gallons or upwards at a time, in any town, village or city in the state in which there is not in force at the time of such sale, a license permitting the sale of such strong and spirituous liquors, wine, ale or beer in quantities less than five gallons at a time,” and that a sale in violation of such provision be a misdemeanor Laws. 1887, ch. 679.
This is the only statute of the state to which our attention has been called making it unlawful to sell strong or spirituous liquors etc. in quantities of five gallons or upwards at a time, to be drunk or used elsewhere than on or about the premises where sold.
And the question is, whether or not that statute was superseded by the provisions of chapter 401 of Laws of 1892, entitled “ An act to revise and consolidate the laws regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors.” While this title imports an act to embrace
The provisions of the act of 1892, standing alone, would have substantially the same effect as those of § 2 of the act of 1873, in so far, that no legal restriction other than that last mentioned would exist to interrupt sales of five gallons or more at a time.
But it is not seen that the provisions of the act of 1892 have, by implication crowded out of operation those of the act of 1887. They may stand harmoniously together, and as the latter act was in force concurrently with that of 1873, it in like manner may remain operative consistently with the provisions of the later act. They do not furnish any substitute for it. It must be assumed that the act of 1887 was purposely omitted from the laws repealed by the act of 1892. And, therefore, it cannot be said that there was a legislative intent to supersede its provisions.
The judgment should be affirmed. All concur.