Wilson v. Commissioners of Jersey City

• Decision Date: 14 August 1919
• Parties: WILSON v. COMMISSIONERS OF JERSEY CITY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

107 A. 797

WILSON

v. COMMISSIONERS OF JERSEY CITY.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Aug. 14, 1919.

Certiorari by Samuel Wilson against the Commissioners of Jersey City, to set aside as violative of the federal Wartime Prohibition Act and the prohibition amendment to the federal Constitution a liquor license issued to another. License set aside.

Argued before Justice SWAYZE sitting alone pursuant to the statute.

G. R. Munroe, of Newark, for prosecutor.

John Milton, of Jersey City, for Jersey City.

SWAYZE, J. The board of commissioners of Jersey City on June 30, 1919, issued a license to Hugh Meehan to sell spirituous, vinous, malt, and brewed liquors from its date to July 1, 1920, subject to the provisions of the laws regulating the sale of intoxicating and brewed liquors and the granting of licenses therefor. By virtue of legislation of the United States government (Act Nov. 21, 1918, c. 212) the sale of distilled spirits for beverage purposes was illegal after June 30, 1919, until the conclusion of the present war, and no beer, wine, or other intoxicating malt or vinous liquors were to be sold for beverage purposes except for export.

It is clear that the sale which the license purports to authorize is in violation of the prohibition of the federal legislation, unless the broad power which the license appears to grant is limited by the provisions that it is subject to the laws regulating the sale.

But laws regulating the sale are very different from laws prohibiting the sale. As to distilled spirits the prohibition is absolute, while the license purports to authorize the sale of spirituous liquors. There is a plain conflict between the terms of the license and the federal legislation, and the latter must control. It is idle to suggest that the license may authorize some sales, say for export, or some time, say between the end of the war and the taking effect of the Eighteenth Amendment. The court has no way of knowing that the commissioners would have issued or the licensee have accepted a license thus limited. Moreover, the sale of any intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes is absolutely prohibited after January 16, 1920, and the license purports to permit the sale for nearly six months longer.

Whether, in view of the valuable property right a holder of an old license has in his privilege of renewal, the commissioners might have granted a license authorizing the sale subject to the prohibition of the federal legislation, and thereby...