Ex Parte Lewinsky

• Decision Date: 11 November 1913
• Citation: 63 So. 577,66 Fla. 324
• Parties: Ex parte LEWINSKY.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

63 So. 577

66 Fla. 324

Ex parte LEWINSKY.

Florida Supreme Court

November 11, 1913

Original petition by Frank Lewinsky for writ of habeas corpus. Writ discharged, and petitioner remanded.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Under the title of an act to 'regulate' the sale of intoxicating liquors, the Legislature may prohibit its sale to certain classes of citizens needing special protection.

In counties where the sale of intoxicating liquors is permitted under article 19 of the Constitution, the Legislature is still free to regulate the sale so long as it stops short of actual or practical prohibition.

A dealer in intoxicating liquors has no constitutional right to privacy in the sale, nor to the privilege of rendering his place of business attractive for the loiterer by the use of chairs and tables, nor has he such right to sell to females.

Special restrictions against the sale of intoxicating liquors are not necessarily void as class legislation, because hotels having 100 rooms or more are exempted therefrom, if the restrictions be confined to the classes of persons to whom the sale is forbidden, and to the furnishing of and approaches to the room in which the sale takes place.

COUNSEL L. A. Harris, of Key West, and B. B. MacDonell and A. G. Hartridge, both of Jacksonville, for petitioner.

T. F West, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

COCKRELL J.

This is an original proceeding in this court upon a writ of habeas corpus, issued by one of the justices, returnable to the full court. The petitioner is in custody under a warrant issued by the county judge of Monroe county, charging him with a violation of chapter 6516 of the Laws of 1913, in that he sold intoxicating liquors to a female, and also in that he had side entrances and screens to his barroom, a place of business for the sale of intoxicating liquors.

The cited act of the Legislature is alleged to be unconstitutional and void, upon two grounds: The title, being 'an act to regulate the sale or furnishing of intoxicating liquors, wines or beer, and prescribing a penalty for the violation of certain of its provisions,' is said to be too restrictive to admit of the prohibitions therein contained. The assertion is untenable. Every regulation is of necessity a restriction. 'Regulate' is defined by Webster to mean 'to direct by rule or restriction,' and it has been specifically held by the Supreme Court of Indiana as sufficiently expressive of the subject of an act, prohibiting the sale of intoxcating liquors to minors and to persons in the habit of getting drunk. Williams v. State, 48 Ind. 306. Our legislation goes but one step further, in that it includes in the restriction also 'females,' a class frequently associated in matters of legislation with infants and others in need of special protection, and a class not now before u...