TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Commonwealth v. Holstine

COMMONWEALTH v. CHARLES HOLSTINE

Commonwealth v. Holstine, 19 A. 273 (Pa. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 17, 1890
Docket
No. 102
Judges
Clark, Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Paxson, Sterrett, Williams
Citations
19 A. 273132 Pa. 3571890 Pa. LEXIS 821
Syllabus
x. A plea of non volo contendere to an indictment, although not technically a plea oí! guilty, is so in substance, and justifies the court in imposing sentence upon the defendant: Buck v. Commonwealth, 107 Pa. 486. 2. To sustain a conviction for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, under the act of May 13, 1887, P. L. 113, it is not necessary for the commonwealth to prove a criminal intent; if the sale be contrary to the act, the intent is immaterial.* 3. A licensed bottler selling liquor in a county other than that covered by his license, is liable to the punishment provided by said act for selling without license, and not merely to that imposed upon violations of the law by licensed persons.† (a) A driver in the employ of a hottler having a license in Philadelphia county, took orders in Montgomery county for liquors. The liquors ordered were loaded upon the employer’s wagon in Philadelphia, and delivered to the purchasers in Montgomery county by the driver, who collected the money therefor: 4. This was clearly a sale and delivery in Montgomery county, and the driver being protected by his employer’s license only where the employer himself would be protected, was properly convicted and sentenced for selling liquors without license in Montgomery county.
Summary
APPEAL BY DEFENDANT FROM THE COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY. No. 102 January Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 93 June Term 1889, Q. S. On June 6, 1889, the grand jury returned. as a true bill an indictment charging Charles Holstine with the offence of selling liquors without a license in the county- of Montgomery. On October 7, 1889, the defendant, being called for trial, entered a plea of non volo contendere, and the case was thereupon heard by the court, Weand, J., upon the following agreed statement of facts: “ The defendant, as the driver and agent of George W. Otto, a regularly licensed bottler of the city of Philadelphia, within two years last past received, in Montgomery county, orders for lager beer and porter for his employer, from Wm. B. Carman, and subsequently filled these orders by delivering for his employer lager beer and porter from the wagon of Otto to said Wm. B. Carman, and he collected for his employer the price of the lager beer and porter when delivered in this county. No lager beer or porter was delivered in less quantities than one quart. Defendant was employed by Otto, on a weekly salary, with no commissions or profits from any lager beer or porter thus delivered by him for his employer. The defendant has no license whatever for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and all his acts were done in the course of his employment by George W. Otto, who has no license from the courts of Montgomery county, his only license being the bottler’s license granted by the courts of Philadelphia.” The court, upon consideration of the foregoing, entered against the defendant a judgment of guilty upon his plea; exception.1 Subsequently, after argument, a rule for a new trial was discharged, and the court pronounced the following sentence: “And now, Nov. 18, 1889, tbe motion for a new trial having been overruled, and the prisoner called upon for sentence, and the court being of opinion that under the fifteenth section of the act of May 13,1887, the court is bound to sentence under the first paragraph of said section, do now sentence the prisoner to pay a fine of $500 to the commonwealth, and the costs of prosecution, and that he undergo an imprisonment in the Montgomery county jail for the period of three months from this date, and that he stand committed until this sentence is complied with.” Thereupon the defendant, having obtained a special allowance thereof, together with an order of supersedeas, took this appeal, assigning for error: 1. The entry of the judgment of guilty upon the facts shown.1 2. The sentence pronounced against the defendant.3

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Paxson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Opinion, Mr. Chief Justice Paxson :

The defendant, appellant, was indicted in the court below for selling liquor without a license. To this indictment he pleaded non volo contendere. This, although not technically a plea of guilty, is so in substance, and justifies the court in imposing sentence: Buck v. Commonwealth, 107 Pa. 486 . We may therefore safely pass by the somewhat elaborate argument to show that the defendant was not guilty, with the single remark that it is not necessary to sustain a conviction for selling intoxicating liquors under the act of 1887 for the commonwealth to prove a criminal intent. It is enough to show the sale, when the defendant may, if he can, shield himself behind a license. If the sale is contrary to law, the intent has nothing to do with it. A contrary ruling would fritter away the act of 1887, and convictions under it would be rare.

The defendant had no license. He was in the employ of one *362 George W. Otto, a licensed bottler having his place of business in the city of Philadelphia. The defendant was the driver of Otto’s wagon, and a portion of his route lay through Montgomery county. His duty was to deliver bottled ale and beer, ordered by Otto’s customers, to the persons who had ordered it. He was in the habit of taking orders in that county, which he returned to his employer in Philadelphia, who filled the orders ; the beer and ale were loaded upon defendant’s wagon, and he delivered the same in Montgomery county, collected the money, and returned it to his employer. The transaction for which the defendant was indicted was of this character. This was clearly a sale and delivery in Montgomery county. The license held by Mr. Otto authorized him to sell in Philadelphia. He had a right to sell to any person in the commonwealth, provided the sales were made at his place of business: Commonwealth v. Fleming, 130 Pa. 138 . But he had no right to peddle his beer through other counties not covered by his license, and make sales there. The defendant had no license, and is only protected where his employer would be protected. So far as sales in Montgomery county are concerned, Otto had no license; and his license issued in Philadelphia would have been no answer to this indictment, had it been found against him.

The sentence was imposed under the first paragraph of § 15 of the act of 13th May, 1887, P. L. 113, which provides that “any person who shall hereafter be convicted of selling, or offering for sale, any vinous, spirituous, malt or brewed liquors, or any admixture thereof, without a license, shall be sentenced to pay á fine of not less than $500, nor more than $5,000, and undergo an imprisonment in the county jail of not less than three months, nor more than twelve months.” The court below imposed the minimum punishment fixed by the act. It was contended that the sentence should have been under the second paragraph of said section, which provides a lighter punishment where persons having a license are convicted of violating any of the provisions of the license laws. For the reasons already given, we think the sentence was proper. It follows the indictment strictly, and, as before observed, neither the defendant nor his employer was licensed to sell in Montgomery county.

*363 It was urged tliat this was a hard ease ; that the defendant sold ignorantly, and did not know he was violating the law. This may be so, but we cannot accept the plea of ignorance for violations of the act of 1887. The devices to evade it are so numerous and so adroit, and the consequences of its violation are so serious to the welfare and good order of the community generally, that we think it the duty of the courts to enforce the law rigidly. It is needed that all those who engage in this traffic in violation of law should know that the way of the transgressor is hard.

The judgment is affirmed, and it is ordered that Charles Holstine, the appellant, surrender himself forthwith to the keeper of the Montgomery county prison, there to undergo the sentence imposed upon him by the court below.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 45 cases

View all citing references →
1891: 21892: 11896: 21899: 11905: 11906: 11907: 11909: 11910: 11911: 31912: 21913: 21914: 11917: 11918: 21919: 11920: 11922: 11923: 11924: 21925: 21926: 11927: 21928: 31932: 11933: 11934: 11942: 11950: 11959: 11963: 11967: 11978: 118912026peak 1911 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Commonwealth v. Guinzburg46 Pa. Super. 488 (1911)
  2. Commonwealth v. Koczwara155 A.2d 825 (Pa. 1959)
  3. Tucker v. United States196 F. 260 (7th Cir. 1912)
  4. Commonwealth v. Ferguson44 Pa. Super. 626 (1910)
  5. Peel v. State150 So. 2d 281 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963)
  6. Commonwealth v. Zelt21 A. 7 (Pa. 1891)

Most recent

  1. Charles E. Duffy, F-2268 v. Julius T. Cuyler and District Attorney, Philadelphia County581 F.2d 1059 (3d Cir. 1978)
  2. Clem's Cafe Liquor License Case227 A.2d 491 (Pa. 1967)
  3. Peel v. State150 So. 2d 281 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963)
  4. Commonwealth v. Koczwara155 A.2d 825 (Pa. 1959)
  5. Commonwealth ex rel. Monaghan v. Burke74 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1950)
  6. Commonwealth v. Smith30 A.2d 339 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1942)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Buck v. Commonwealth, 107 Pa. 486 (1884) 46
Commonwealth v. Fleming, 18 A. 622 (Pa. 1889) 17

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list