Lloyd v. Dollison
194 U.S. 445 (1904)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U.S. 445 (1904)

Lloyd v. Dollison

No. 262

Argued April 28-29, 1904

Decided May 16, 1904

194 U.S. 445

Syllabus

The first eight articles of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States have reference to powers exercised by the government of the United States, and not to those of the states.

The power of the state over the liquor traffic is such that the traffic may be absolutely prohibited, and that being so, it may be prohibited conditionally, and a local option law does not necessarily deny to any person equal protection of the laws because the sale of liquor is by the operation of such a law a crime in certain territory and not in other territory.

This Court will not anticipate the judgment of the state court by deciding what persons are qualified to act as jurors before the trial and one who is to be tried cannot complain until he is made to suffer.

It is not necessarily a deprivation of liberty or property without due process of law to commit to the judgment of a court the amount of punishment for illegal liquor selling.

The Ohio local option law regulating the sale of liquor is not unconstitutional as depriving one attempting to sell liquor in that, if the state in which such sale is prohibited of his liberty or property without due process of law or denying him the equal protection of the laws.

The plaintiff in error was committed to custody upon a warrant for violating the law of Ohio called the "Beal Local Option Law." He petitioned in habeas corpus for his discharge to one of the judges of the state having jurisdiction. On hearing, he was remitted to custody, and the judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state. This writ of error was then sued out. The question involved is the constitutionality of the law.

The facts constituting the violation of the law were alleged to be the unlawful selling and furnishing to one E. L. Scott, a resident of the City of Cambridge, six pints of beer, and with keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are kept for sale,

Page 194 U. S. 446

given away, and furnished for beverage purposes. The sale was not within any of the exceptions of the law.

In the petition for habeas corpus, it was alleged that plaintiff in error was arrested by a constable of the Township of Cambridge upon a warrant issued by a justice of the peace in and for the Township of Center, Guernsey County, Ohio, which township is outside of the geographical boundaries of the City of Cambridge, where the violation of the law was claimed to have occurred.

That, by virtue of the arrest, plaintiff in error was committed to jail in the County of Guernsey, and there imprisoned by J. B. Dollison, the sheriff of the county.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.