Maryland case law › Hayes v. State

Hayes v. State

171 Md. 94 (1936) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedSloan, J.✓ Good law
HoldingRalph Hayes was indicted in Dorchester County on two counts: (1) unlawfully selling an alcoholic beverage (one pint of whisky) to Thomas Jones for sixty cents without a license, and (2) possession for the purpose of sale and delivery.

Sloan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Ralph Hayes, the appellant, was indicted in Dorchester County on the charge in the first count of the indictment that he “did then and there unlawfully sell an alcoholic beverage, to wit: One pint of the same unto Thomas Jones for the price of sixty cents ($.60) current money of the United States, without a license as provided by Law,” etc. On the second count he was charged with the possession for the purpose of sale and delivery of an alcoholic beverage. According to the docket entries, the defendant demanded that he be told what kind of alcoholic beverage he was charged with selling. The state’s attorney replied, “Whisky.” The defendant then demurred to each count.

The demurrer was overruled as to the first count and sustained as to the second. He then elected to be tried by the court sitting as a jury, and from a judgment against him he appeals. In Green v. State, 170 Md. 134 , 183 A. 526 , this court held that the General Law of 1933, Extra Session, ch. 2, had repealed the then existing Local Law for Dorchester County, Acts 1910, ch. 583, which forbade the sale of “any spirituous, vinous, malt, fermented or other intoxicating liquors or fermented wine or cider of any kind, medicated bitters or any compound of which alcohol is the chief or a principal ingredient,” and that the liquor law now in force in Dorchester County is the General Act of 1933, Extra Session, Code, art. 2B. In the Green case it was declared that the only kinds of liquor licenses 96 which could be granted in Dorchester County were to manufacturers, wholesalers, and beer licenses designated as “Class A (Off Sale),” “Class B (On Sale)—Hotels and Restaurants,” and “Class C (On Sale)—Clubs.” The defendant’s contention here is that, inasmuch as no other •licenses can be issued in Dorchester County than those so designated, it is not unlawful to sell a pint of whisky at retail in that county.

The defendant argues that because under the common law no license was required for the sale of liquor, it is no offense to sell where a license cannot be granted, unless there is a statute which expressly and in terms forbids such sale. It is provided by section 2, article 2B of the Code, Acts of 1933, Ex. Sess., ch. 2, that: “From and after the taking effect of the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, no person shall at any time manufacture, blend, rectify, bottle,

This is a preview of Hayes v. State. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.