State v. Stiefel

Bryan J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Edward W. Stiefel was indicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. The indictment charged that he, being a brewer of fermented liquors, unlawfully did sell “fermented liquor to Adam Dietrich in unbroken packages, containing not less than one gallon each, without first taking out a license therefor.' ’ The Court sustained a demurrer to the indictment, and the State has brought the case to this Court by petition in the nature of a writ of error. The question to be decided turns on the construction of the Act of 1890, chapter 848.

The statute belongs to the class of Public Local Laws, and is confined in its •operation to the City of Baltimore. Its leading object was to mitigate some of the evils connected with the sale of intoxicating liquors. Long experience had shown that these were of most frequent and scandalous occurrence in public drinking houses. The greater portion of the statute is directed to a strict control and supervision ■of these places; and it requires a careful scrutiny into the character and previous conduct of applicants for license to retail spirituous liquors therein, with the purpose that none should be licensed, except those who would keep decent and orderly houses, and would obey the laws on the subject of these sales.

It was considered that the exaction of a license fee of two hundred and fifty dollars, instead of fifty dollars previously required, would diminish the number of applications, or keep the traffic ⁵⁴⁸ out of the hands of ohjectionahle persons. At all events the Legislature saw fit to increase the charge for licenses, with the expectation that it would in some way promote the general policy of lessening the evils in question. Three-fourths of the money derived from them were granted to the City of Baltimore; but it cannot he supposed that this pecuniary benefit to the city was one of the cardinal objects of the law. An examination of some of the features of the Act will disclose more particularly its scope and effect.

Section A enacts as follows: “No person shall sell, offer for sale, or keep for sale, in the Oity of Baltimore, any intoxicating liquors, except as hereinafter provided; but this shall not apply to sales made by a person under a provision of law requiring him to sell personal property, nor to sales of liquors by wholesale, nor to sales by the maker, brewer or distiller thereof, not to he drunk on the premises.” This section' certainly exempts persons of the descriptions named from the operation of the law, except in the single instance where the liquors sold by them are “to be drunk on the premises.” We shall see whether it is affected or modified by subsequent provisions. Sections B, 0, andD, relates to'the establishment of a Board of liquor license commissioners for Baltimore Oity. Section E is as follows: “No licenses to sell intoxicating liquors other than by wholesale traders, distillers, brewers and rectifiers, shall be granted in the Oity of Baltimore except by said board, and only to citizens of the United States of temperate habits and good moral character, who have complied with the requisites of this Act.” This section shows that persons of the occupations named are not required to obtain licenses from the Board. It is implied that they must obtain them in some quarter; but it is not stated in this section, under what circumstances they are required to have them.

We must obtain this information elsewhere. Section L is ⁵⁴⁹ the only portion of the statute which refers to this matter. It requires a license in three classes of cases; and in each case a fee of two hundred and fifty dollars must he paid. The first class is composed of those who hare satisfactorily stood the tests prescribed for persons who desire to sell distilled liquors by retail at a hotel, restaurant, or such like place.

The second consists of bona fide retail grocers who wish to sell liquors in unbroken packages, or in quantities not less than a pint, and in no case to be drunk on their premises. Before considering the third class of persons to be licensed, we must notice that the two classes just mentioned are composed of persons who sell directly to the consumer; and we must also bear in mind that section A excludes from the operation of the Act sales by brewers, unless made directly to consumers who are to drink the same on the premises. We are now prepared to examine this third class. It is described in these words: “and provided, that distillers, •brewers, wholesale dealers, and jobbers, shall not be allowed or permitted to sell distilled or fermented liquors in