Molinari v. State
Decision Date | 18 July 1922 |
Docket Number | 32. |
Citation | 119 A. 291,141 Md. 565 |
Parties | MOLINARI v. STATE. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Allegany County.
Anthony Molinari was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, THOMAS, PATTISON, ADKINS, and OFFUTT, JJ.
Clarence Lippel and Arch A. Young, both of Cumberland (Carl G. Mullin of Cumberland, on the brief), for appellant.
Fuller Barnard, Jr., State's Atty., of Cumberland, and Alexander Armstrong, Atty. Gen. (Lindsay C. Spencer, Asst. Atty. Gen on the brief), for the State.
A demurrer to these pleas was sustained, whereupon traverser pleaded "not guilty," was tried by the court, and convicted. From 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 (Act May 13, 1887 [P. L. 108]), 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 nonintoxicating.
It has been held recently by both the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in Vigliotti v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 271 Pa. 10, 115 A. 20) and by the Supreme Court of the United States (April 10, 1922, affirming the Pennsylvania court, on appeal) 258 U.S. 403, 42 S.Ct. 330, 66 L.Ed. 686, that the Brooks Law was not abrogated by the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act (41 Stat. 305), and no distinction is made by either court between sales for beverage and sales for nonbeverage purposes. The Pennsylvania court said:
And Justice Brandeis, in the United States Supreme Court's opinion, after quoting in part the above-quoted expression of the Pennsylvania court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Green v. State
... ... hereinafter provided," and this not only covers every ... offense prohibited in Dorchester county by the local law of ... 1910, but more. This is not a mere regulatory provision, but ... is prohibitory as well. See Ulman v. State, 137 Md ... 642, 113 A. 124; Molinari v. State, 141 Md. 565, 119 ... A. 291; Weisengoff v. State, 143 Md. 638, 123 A ... 107; Commonwealth v. Vigliotti, 271 Pa. 10, 115 A ... 20; Id., 258 U.S. 403, 42 S.Ct. 330, 66 L.Ed. 686 ... The Act ... of 1933, Special Session, c. 2, did not in terms or by ... reference ... ...
-
Callahan v. State
...Acts of 1890, codified as article 2, § 34, and page 362 of the Code of Public Local Laws of Maryland (Flack's Ed. 1930); Molinari v. State, 141 Md. 565, 119 A. 291; Weisengoff v. State, 143 Md. 638, 123 A. 107. He tried, convicted, and sentenced, and he has appealed because of two alleged e......
-
State ex rel. Gildar v. Kriss
...United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377, 382-385, 43 S.Ct. 141, 67 L.Ed. 314; Ulman v. State, 137 Md. 642, 113 A. 124; Molinari v. State, 141 Md. 565, 119 A. 291, 263 U.S. 685, 44 S.Ct. 179, 68 L.Ed. 506; Weisengoff v. State, 143 Md. 638, 123 A. 107, affirmed 263 U.S. 685, 44 S.Ct. 179, 68 L.E......
-
Hayes v. State
...they remained on the statute books of the State. Three cases came to this court, Ulman v. State, 137 Md. 642, 113 A. 124; Molinari v. State, 141 Md. 565, 119 A. 291, Weisengoff v. State, 143 Md. 638, 123 A. 107, in which the appellants had been convicted for the sale of liquor without a lic......