Molinari v. State

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Anthony Molinari, the appellant, was indicted on January 6th, 1922, by the grand jury of Allegany Oounty, for selling, ■ on or about November 15th, 1921, “a certain quantity of intoxicating, spirituous and fermented liquors to Harry Morris and to' other persons to the jurors unknown, the said Anthony Molinari then and there not having a license, under the provisions of chapter 140 of the Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, passed in the year 1894, and the ⁵⁶⁶ amendments thereto, to sell intoxicating, spirituous and fermented liquors in Allegany County, aforesaid; contrary to the form of the Act of Assembly in such case made and provided and against the peace, government and dignity of the State.” A demurrer to the- indictment was overruled; whereupon he filed special pleas, which aver in substance that, even if the defendant did malee the sale of intoxicating liquors, as set forth in the indictment, such sale does not constitute an offense under any valid law of the State; that said sale was not made for medicinal or non-beverage purposes, but was made for the purpose of being drunk and consumed as a beverage; “that such sale is not a violation of the acts referred to because said acts pertain to the license and unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes” and such sale came “within the prohibition contained in said Constitutional Amendment (Eighteenth Amendment) and said Act of Congress (the Volstead Act), and that both said Constitutional Amendment .and said Act of Congress constitute a repeal and abrogation or a suspension of the aforesaid laws of the State of Maryland, known as chapter 140 of the Acts of 1894 and all amendments 'thereto.” A demurrer to these pleas was sustained; whereupon traverser pleaded “not guilty,” was tried by the court and convicted. Prom which conviction this appeal was taken. The provisions of the local law of Allegany County above referred to are in many respects like those of the law of Pennsylvania, known as the Brooks Law, and the character and purposes of both are practically identical.

Both are primarily regulatory laws, the revenue features being incidental. Both cover spirituous and fermented liquors, whether intoxicating or non-intoxicating. It has been held recently by both the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in Vigliotti v. Commonwealth, 271 Pa. 10 ) and by the Supreme Court of the United States ( 258 U. S. 403 , affirming the Pennsylvania court, on appeal), that the ⁵⁶⁷ Brooks Law was not abrogated by the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act; and no distinetion is made by either court between sales for beverage and sales for non-beverage purposes. The Pennsylvania court said: “The Brooks Law survives as Pennsylvania’s own police power method of officially listing and adequately controlling the customary source of general supply and distribution to the peoples within her borders of those kinds of liquors among which intoxicating beverages are usually found and she may thus assist in prohibiting their illegal use as such; although, of course, not intended for that specific purpose, the statute is adapted to serve as an instrument with which to perform, at least in part, this State’s right and