ALBANY, MARCH, 1856. 881Wyneliamer against <strong>The</strong> <strong>People</strong>.a police <strong>of</strong>ficer <strong>of</strong> (he city <strong>of</strong> Brooklyn, and brought before apolice justice <strong>of</strong> th<strong>at</strong> city, without any precept for hisarrest having been issued. When he brought him beforethe justice, M<strong>at</strong>hews made a complaint in writing, verifiedby his o<strong>at</strong>h, which st<strong>at</strong>ed th<strong>at</strong> on the day <strong>of</strong> the arrest thecomplainant saw the defendant <strong>at</strong> a place which was specified,in Brooklyn, sell and keep for sale, and have in hispossession, with intent to sell, intoxic<strong>at</strong>ing liquors, to wit,brandy and champagne; th<strong>at</strong> the complainant saw thedefendant engaged vn selling liquor, to wit, brandy, inviol<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>of</strong> the act for the prevention <strong>of</strong> intemperance,pauperism and crime ; th<strong>at</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fence consisted in sellingone glass <strong>of</strong> brandy a ad one bottle <strong>of</strong> champagne ; th<strong>at</strong> the,complainant had arrested the defendant and brought himbefore the justice to answer the charge, and to be dealtwith according to law; and th<strong>at</strong> <strong>at</strong> the time and place <strong>of</strong>the <strong>of</strong>fence, he, the complainant, seized the said brandy andchampagne, with the bottles in which they were contained,and had-stored them in a convenient place, to be disposed<strong>of</strong> as provided by the aforesaid act. <strong>The</strong> defendant askedto be discharged, on the ground th<strong>at</strong> the act was unconstitutional,and on the further ground th<strong>at</strong> the complaint didnot set forth facts mifficient to constitute an <strong>of</strong>fence by thedefendant. His applic<strong>at</strong>ion was denied. He then objectedto being tried by a court <strong>of</strong> special sessions, and <strong>of</strong>fered togive bail for his appearance <strong>at</strong> the next court having criminaljurisdiction. <strong>The</strong> justice overruled the objection,refused to take tail, and required the defendant to plead tothe charge. <strong>The</strong> defendant pleaded not guilty, and thereuponthe complainant was sworn and testified th<strong>at</strong> thedefendapt kept a hotel in Brooklyn, in the basement <strong>of</strong>which he kept a bar room ; th<strong>at</strong> on the 17th <strong>of</strong> July, he,the witrjps?,, saw the defendant sell a glass <strong>of</strong> brandy and abottle (4 champagne, which were intoxic<strong>at</strong>ing liquors, andth<strong>at</strong> tl t defendant kept for sale in his bar room suchU^uo^. He further testified th<strong>at</strong> the champagne was im-
382 CASES IN THE COURT OP .APPEALS.<strong>Wynehamer</strong> against <strong>The</strong> <strong>People</strong>.ported liquor; and th<strong>at</strong> he, the witness, on the occasionaforesaid, seized and took into his possession the bottle <strong>of</strong>brandy from which the defendant sold, and the bottle <strong>of</strong>champagne which he had sold and was in the act <strong>of</strong> delivering.<strong>The</strong> foregoing is the substance <strong>of</strong> all the evidence.<strong>The</strong> court found the defendant guilty <strong>of</strong> selling and havingin his possession with intent to sell, intoxic<strong>at</strong>ing liquors, ascharged in the complaint, adjudged him guilty <strong>of</strong> a misdemeanor,and sentenced him to pay a fine <strong>of</strong> $50, and 15.87costs <strong>of</strong> the proceedings, and th<strong>at</strong> he be imprisoned untilthe same were paid, not exceeding fifty-six days. <strong>The</strong>court further adjudged th<strong>at</strong> the liquor seized be forfeited,and th<strong>at</strong> a warrant for its destruction be issued. On appealby the defendant, the judgment was reversed by the supremecourt <strong>at</strong> a general term in the second district. (See 20Barb., 16S.) <strong>The</strong> people appealed to this court.A. J. Parker, for the plaintiff in error, in the case firstentitled.A. Sawin, for the people.J. M. Van Cott, for the people, in the case secondly entitledJohn A. Lott, for the defendant.<strong>The</strong> opinion by COMSTOCK, J., and th<strong>at</strong> by T. A. JOHNSON first inserted, and by MITCHELL secondly inserted,were delivered in the case <strong>of</strong> <strong>Wynehamer</strong>, first aboveentitled. <strong>The</strong> other opinions, except th<strong>at</strong> by DENIO, 0. J.,which st<strong>at</strong>es his conclusions as to both cases, were deliveredin the case <strong>of</strong> Toynbee.COMSTOCK, J. <strong>The</strong> defendant, Wynehammer, was indictedand convicted by a common-law jury, in the court <strong>of</strong> sessions