Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 20, Number 66, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 21 April 1899 — Austin Wins the Case. [ARTICLE]

Austin Wins the Case.

The Appellate Court Reverses the Fine Against Him for Serving Champagne. The Appellate Court rendered its decision Tuesday, in the now celebrated case against W. B. Austin, the well known attorney and private banker of this city. Mr. Austin served champagne in his office on New Years day, 1898, to a number of friends. He was indicted by the grand jury, for giving away liquor on a legal holiday. He was tried by a jury. Judge Thompson held that the law was to be strictly construed, which would not only make it a crime for a man to give wine to a sick wife on Sunday, but also for the deacons to hand out real wine at communion services, on that day. The jury under these instructions, found Mr. Austin guilty, and fined him S2O. He appealed to the appellate court, and their decision just rendered is a complete victory for Mr. Austin. The following is published abstract of the Appellate court’s decison, as rendered by Judge Robinson and concurred in by the full bench. “The Legislature of this State has never undertaken to legislate directly upon the use of intoxicating liquors by the individual citizens, except its excessive use. It has never been the policy of the Legislature to regulate the proper use of liquor by adults, but to regulate the traffic in liquor by restricting its sale or barter, ** * “The act of 1873 seems to have been the first declaration by the Legislature that it should be an offense for a liquor dealer to give away intoxicating liquors to be drank as a beverage, and where punishment has been inflicted for giving away intoxicating liquor, it has been a necessary incident to a statute regulating the sale and to secure its efficient operation. * * * Appellant was not a dealer in liquors. “He was in no way connected with the liquor traffic. He furnished liquor to an adult friend as his guest in his own private apartments, without price and as an act of hospitality and without any intention to evade the provisions of the law. How far the Legislature might go in restricting the purely personal rights and privileges of an individual in such matters is not before us in this case. But we cannot escape the conclusion that an affirmance of this judgment would logically lead to an infringement of personal privileges never contemplated by the Legislature in its enactment of our present liquor laws. It will readily be seen without enumerating instances that such a precedent could be invoked as controlling in cases that would make such a construction of the law aot only unjust, but absurd. We know, as a part of the history es the State, the people have long been divided as to the policy the State should adopt with reference to the liquor question. That the Legislature has power to restrict its sale and regulate its use has long been settled. With the questiun whether a legislative prohibition of its use in a case like that at bar would be an invasion of private rights we have nothing to do. We simply mean to hold that, in our opinion, the Legislature has not yet gone that far. “A court should hesitate to carry the provisions of any statute into the private life of the individual, and declare for him a rule of conduct therein, unless the Legislature has plainly directed it should be done * * * in I language that cannot be doubted. The judgment is reversed.”