Winkle v. State

• Citation: 91 A. 385,27 Del. 578
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
• Decision Date: 16 June 1914
• Parties: BENJAMIN F. VAN WINKLE, defendant below, plaintiff in error, v. THE STATE OF DELAWARE, plaintiff below, defendant in error

91 A. 385

27 Del. 578

BENJAMIN F. VAN WINKLE, defendant below, plaintiff in error, v. THE STATE OF DELAWARE, plaintiff below, defendant in error

Supreme Court of Delaware

June 16, 1914

Supreme Court, June Term, 1914.

WRIT OF ERROR (No. 1, January Term, 1914) to Court of General Sessions of Kent County. (No. 32, October Term, 1913 below).

Benjamin F. Van Winkle was convicted of bringing intoxicating liquor into local option territory (ante, 88 A. 807), and he brings error. Reversed.

Indictment for violation of Chapter 139, Volume 27, Laws of Delaware known as the "Hazel Law", and conviction under the law as announced upon an agreed state of facts.

On the first day of March, 1913, the Congress of the United States enacted a statute which has become generally known as the "Webb-Kenyon Act," the title and text of which are as follows:

"An act divesting intoxicating liquors of their interstate character in certain cases.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

"That the shipment or transportation, in any manner or by any means whatsoever, of any spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor of any kind, from one state territory, or District of the United States, or place non-contiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof into any other state, territory, or District of the United States, or place non-contiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or from any foreign country into any state, territory, or District of the United States, or place non-contiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof which said spirituous, vinous, malted, fermented, or other intoxicating liquor is intended, by any person, interested therein, to be received, possessed, sold, or in any manner used, either in the original package or otherwise, in violation of any law of such state, territory, or District of the United States, or place non-contiguous to but subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is hereby prohibited."

37 Stat. 699.

Following the enactment of this federal statute, the General Assembly of the State of Delaware enacted a statute now commonly known as the "Hazel law," approved April 8, 1913, which is in the following language:

"An act regulating the shipment or carrying of spirituous, vinous or malt liquor into local option territory, or the delivery of same in such territory.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware in General Assembly met:

"Section 1. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier, knowingly to accept or receive for shipment, transportation or delivery to any person or place within local option territory, or to carry, bring into, transfer to any other person, carrier or agent, handle, deliver or distribute in local option territory, any spirituous, vinous or malt liquor, regardless of the name by which it may be called.

"Section 2. That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation engaged in the manufacture or sale of spirituous, vinous or malt liquor, or the agent, servant or employee of any such person, firm or corporation, to carry, convey, or bring into local option territory, spirituous, vinous or malt liquor, regardless of the name by which it may be called, by any conveyance or means of transportation whatsoever.

"Section 3. That any person, whether as principal, or agent, clerk or servant of another, who shall knowingly violate any of the provisions of this act, shall upon conviction thereof be fined not less than fifty dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars for the first offense; and upon conviction for any subsequent offense, in addition to such fine shall be imprisoned for a period of not less than thirty days, nor more than six months.

"Section 4. This act shall apply to all packages of spirituous, vinous or malt liquor, whether broken or unbroken. Each package of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquor, regardless of the name by which it may be called, accepted, received, carried, transferred, handled, delivered or distributed in violation of the provisions of this act, shall constitute a separate offense. And the false or fictitious naming or labeling of any spirituous, vinous or malt liquor for shipment or delivery into local option territory, shall work a forfeiture of such liquor.

"Section 5. Nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to the shipment or delivery to physicians or druggists, of spirituous, vinous or malt liquor, in unbroken packages in quantity not to exceed five gallons at any one time, nor to the delivery to churches, or the proper officers thereof, of wine in unbroken packages for sacramental purposes.

"Section 6. That it shall be unlawful for any person to carry, bring or have brought any quantity of spirituous, vinous or malt liquor from any point within the State of Delaware into local option territory within said state greater than one gallon within the space of twenty-four hours."

Chapter 139, Volume 27, Laws of Delaware.

In the Court of General Sessions of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County, at its June term, 1913, the grand jury indicted one William Grier for a violation of certain of the provisions of the last recited act, charging that as the agent of a liquor dealer in the City of Philadelphia and State of Pennsylvania, William Grier brought into local option territory, within the State of Delaware, to wit, in Sussex County, a certain quantity of liquor purchased by a resident of the said county and there delivered the same to him. The case was heard and the law decided by the court upon an agreed state of facts and the defendant was convicted under the law as stated in the opinion of the court and reported under the title of State v. Grier, ante, 88 A. 579.

In the Court of General Sessions of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County, at its October term, 1913, the grand jury found a true bill against one Benjamin F. Van Winkle, who is the plaintiff in error in this case, charging that in violation of the said Hazel Law, he, as agent of the Adams Express Company, a common carrier doing business in the State of Delaware, transported and delivered liquor to a resident of Kent County, which is a local option district in the State of Delaware.

The case was presented to the Court of General Sessions, upon the following agreed state of facts:

"And now, to wit, this tenth day of November, A. D. 1913, it is agree by and between Josiah O. Wolcott, Attorney General of the State of Delaware, and Daniel O. Hastings, Herbert H Ward and John Biggs, attorneys for Benjamin F. Van Winkle, the defendant in the above stated case, that the following case be stated for the opinion of the court.

"That Benjamin F. Van Winkle was on the ninth day of August, A. D 1913, and for a long time prior thereto the agent of the Adams Express Company at the Town of Smyrna, located in Duck Creek Hundred, Kent County, State of Delaware; that the said Adams Express Company was on the said ninth day of August and for a long time prior thereto a common carrier of goods, wares and merchandise, and now is and then was authorized to do business as a common carrier in all parts of the State of Delaware, and in other states, including the State of Pennsylvania; that it was within the scope of the employment of the said Benjamin F. Van Winkle, as agent as aforesaid, to deliver as agent aforesaid, goods, wares and merchandise transported and carried by said Adams Express Company and consigned to persons in the Town of Smyrna, aforesaid; that on the ninth day of August, A. D. 1913, Consumers Brewing Company, a corporation doing business in the City of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, pursuant to the direction of one Henry M. Smith, delivered to said Adams Express Company, a common carrier as aforesaid, in the said City of Philadelphia, one crate of malt liquor, to wit, beer in bottles, consigned to and to be transported, carried and delivered to said Henry M. Smith of the Town of Smyrna, in Duck Creek Hundred, State of Delaware; that the said malt liquor was known to be such and was so received by said Adams Express Company and promptly transported and carried by it as common carrier aforesaid by means of a continuous and unbroken transportation from the said City of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania through New Castle County in the State of Delaware to the Town of Smyrna in Kent County, State of Delaware, where it was received by the said Benjamin F. Van Winkle in the course of his employment as agent as aforesaid, for delivery to the said Henry M. Smith, and was delivered by the said Benjamin F. Van Winkle in the course of his employment as agent as aforesaid, to the said Henry M. Smith; that at the time the said malt liquor was so delivered by the said Benjamin F. Van Winkle, the said Benjamin F. Van Winkle knew that it was malt liquor, to wit, beer, that he was delivering in manner aforesaid; that the said malt liquor was intended by the said Henry M. Smith to be used by him for his own consumption, and he did not intend to sell or otherwise unlawfully dispose of the same; that the purpose for which the said liquor was to be used was known to the said Adams Express Company, and to its agent the said Benjamin F. Van Winkle; that the said malt liquor had been theretofore purchased by the said Henry M. Smith from the said Consumers Brewing Company by sending a written order therefor from the Town of Smyrna aforesaid, to the said Consumers Brewing Company at the City of Philadelphia aforesaid, together with the purchase price therefor through the mail, directing that the said beer be shipped to him, the said Henry M. Smith, by the said Adams Express Company; that the said Consumers...