430 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, ~ 
and also for the sale of articles containing spirits but not drink- 
able. A further clause provided that no one could maintain an 
action on account of liquor sold without proving a sale in all re- 
spects in accordance with law; and there was another that all 
liquors kept in violation of the law should be deemed a public 
nuisance and summarily destroyed. 
Wynehamer had been indicted for selling intoxicating liquors in 
violation of the law just recited. In accordance with the act evi- 
dence was introduced tending to show that brandy was sold to sev- 
eral people at his bar in Buffalo on July 4, 1855, and drunk on 
the premises. With that the state rested. The court was asked 
to discharge him because no offense had been shown ; and that it 
did not appear but that the liquor sold was imported and such as he 
had a right to sell; and that the act was void as violating the 
provisions of both state and federal constitutions in respect to 
unreasonable searches and seizures, and depriving him of prop- 
perty without due process of law; and that it had not been 
shown that the liquor was not authorized to be sold under the law. 
The request was denied, and he offered to prove that the liquor was 
drawn from an imported package on which duty had been paid ; 
and the evidence was refused. He offered to prove that the liquor 
was owned by him and in his possession before the law went into 
effect, which was also refused. He was found guilty, fined fifty dol- 
lars and costs. This judgment, having been affirmed by the state 
Supreme Court in banc, was brought for review to the Court of 
Appeals. 
Toynbee was arrested by a police officer in Brooklyn, who made 
information to seeing him have brandy and champagne and seeing 
_ him engaged in selling it, and that defendant was brought be- 
fore the magistrate to be dealt with according to law, his liquor 
having been seized. He asked to be discharged because of the 
unconstitutionality of the law. This was denied. He pleaded not 
guilty and was convicted on evidence of having and selling liquor 
alone, and was fined and the liquors ordered to be destroyed. This 
judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court in banc, and the state 
took the case to the Court of Appeals, where the two were heard 
together. 
Touching the constitutionality of the law as affecting property 
rights at the time of its enactment, the court by Justice Hubbard 
Says : 
- 
