Commonwealth v. Certain Intoxicating Liquors

• Decision Date: 30 June 1874
• Citation: 115 Mass. 153
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Certain Intoxicating Liquors, Boston Beer Company, claimant
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

115 Mass. 153

Commonwealth v. Certain Intoxicating Liquors, Boston Beer Company, claimant

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

June 30, 1874

Suffolk. Complaint to the Municipal Court of the city of Boston, on the St. of 1869, c. 415, § 44, against certain intoxicating liquors, alleged to have been deposited by Patrick O'Connell in a certain vehicle, and being conveyed by him to some unknown person, the said unknown person intending to sell the same in violation of law.

The Boston Beer Company appeared and claimed an interest in certain of the liquors seized under said complaint.

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Aldrich, J., it was agreed by the parties that the Boston Beer Company was incorporated under the St. of 1827, c. 32, "For the purpose of manufacturing malt liquors in the city of Boston," and that its charter gave it all the powers and privileges and made it subject to all the duties and requirements of the St. of 1808, c. 65, passed March 3, 1809 that this last named act was repealed by the St. of 1829, c 53, § 16; that the liquors claimed by the Boston Beer Company were malt liquors, and were manufactured and owned by the said corporation, and were being transported by O'Connell as its agent, to its place of business for the purpose of sale.

The claimant asked the court to instruct the jury: 1. "That by the repeal of the St. of 1808, c. 65, the legislature relinquished the power reserved in this statute, to repeal and alter the grant made by its charter to the company, that this relinquishment of the power of repeal or alteration was a final extinguishment of the power, and could not be resumed. 2. That the St. of 1869, c. 415, and the acts in addition thereto, prohibiting the manufacture and sale and the transporting for sale of intoxicating liquors, impair the obligation of the contract contained in the charter of said company, and are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and not therefore binding on said company. 3. That the said company could lawfully manufacture, own and transport said ale, and the vessels containing the same, for the purpose of being sold by it at its place of business in Boston; and that therefore the seizure of said ale and vessels was wrongfully made, and that they should be returned to said claimant."

The presiding judge declined to give such instructions, but instructed the jury, that as it was agreed and admitted that the said company was the manufacturer and owner of the ale at the time of said seizure, and was then transporting the same by its agent, O'Connell, for the purpose of sale in this Commonwealth, contrary to the provisions of the St. of 1869 it was lawfully seized, and was liable to forfeiture.

The jury found that the ale described in the complaint, and seized upon the warrant, was at the time of the making of the complaint deposited and kept by O'Connell, as agent of the claimant, in the vehicle named in the complaint, for the purpose of being sold in this Commonwealth, contrary to the provisions of the St. of 1869, c. 415.

The claimant excepted to the foregoing rulings and instructions.

Exceptions overruled.

F. O Prince, for the claimant. The prohibitory legislation in the St. of 1869, which impairs the powers of this corporation, is not a lawful exercise of the police powers of the State, as police regulations must not be in conflict with any of the provisions of the charter; they must be police regulations in fact, and not amendments of the charter in curtailment of the corporate franchise. Cooley's Const. Limitations 577-579, and cases cited. State v. Hawthorne, 9 Mo. 385. Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53. Adams v. Hackett, 7 Foster 289. A license to sell may be annulled,...