ARGUMENTS-OPINION. "We, the undersigned, respectfully remonstrate against the granting of a license to Cornelius Mundy, as applied for at this term of Court: "Because he already has a retailer's license, and because this license is not necessary for the accommodation of the public, there being already a large number of licensed places, both retail and wholesale, in the vicinity. "THE CITIZENS' LEAGUE, "By GEO. W. TODD, "President." (And others.) Mr. Prickett contended that under Rev. Code, 411, Section 8, an applicant who had a retailer's license as a hotel keeper could not have combined with the same a wholesale license to sell intoxicating liquors. Mr. Ball claimed that the Court had theretofore granted wholesale licenses under similar circumstances. LORE, C. J.:-We have never heretofore had this question brought before us in this shape. Where such licenses have been granted they have come before us without objection as bona fide retailers of goods, wares and merchandise. The kind has never been inquired into, nor objected to. Here comes a person not claiming to be such, but a hotel keeper, and asks to combine the two-hotel keeping and wholesale liquor selling. We refuse to grant this license, on the ground that the law does not contemplate the blending of the two lines of business named. SYLLABUS-ARGUMENTS. IN RE APPLICATION OF GEORGE J. BIEDERMAN FOR A WHOLESALE LICENSE TO SELL INTOXICATING LIQUORS. Intoxicating Liquors-Manufacturer's License-Right to Sell Product-Other License not Necessary. If a party has a license to manufacture beer it means that he has a license to sell it. He has whatever privilege that license grants. The latter part of Section 1, page 70 of the Revised Code seems to remove all doubt as to the right of the manufacturer to sell his product. 1901. (June 8, 1901.) LORE, C. J., and SPRUANCE, J., sitting. Walter H. Hayes for the applicant. William S. Prickett for the Law and Order Society. Court of General Sesssions, New Castle County, May Term, It was admitted by counsel that George J. Biederman, the applicant for a wholesale license, already had a manufacturer's license for the manufacture of beer. (Rev. Code, 71, Sec. 1.) SPRUANCE, J.:-If this man already has a manufacturer's license it gives him all the privileges enjoyed ordinarily by brewers. He has a right to sell the product of his manufacture. LORE, C. J.:-If he has taken out a manufacturer's license, he is not bound to take out a vendor's license. Mr. Hayes:-If your Honors will turn to page 410 of the Revised Code, you will find that Section 1 of the act, entitled, "An act regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors, provides: "That no person, by himself, his agent, or servant, directly or OPINION. indirectly, shall sell any intoxicating liquors except as herein provided." Then it provides for a license. We only want to comply with the law. It has been decided in this State that beer is not a spiritous liquor, but a malt liquor. SPRUANCE, J.:-If the party has a licence to manufacture beer it means that he has a license to sell it. He has whatever privilege that license grants. The latter part of Section 1, on page 70 of the Revised Code, seems to remove all doubt as to the right of the manufacturer to sell his product. Application refused. FALL SESSIONS, 1901. NEIL KELLY, Administrator of CHARLES D. KELLY, deceased, vs. CHARLES R. JEFFERIS, Administrator c. t. a. of MARY KELLY, deceased. Amicable Action-Case Stated-Will-Legacy; Vesting of-Intention of Testator-Administrator. I. A by will bequeathed as follows: "I leave or bequeath for the care of my baby five hundred dollars." The baby survived his mother, and died at the agc of about two and a half months. Held, that it was the intention of the testator that the legacy should be for the benefit of her child in any event; that the failure to apply it to his care or maintenance did not defeat the legacy; that it became vested on the death of the testator, and was payable to the administrator of the legatee. 2. Where a legacy is given to a person for a particular purpose, to which it becomes impossible to apply it without the fault of the legatee, the legacy will vest on the death of the testator. 3. A legacy for the care of a person is substantially the same as a legacy for the maintenance of such person. A legacy for the maintenance of a person during life does not fail by reason of the non-payment or non-application of the money during the life time of the legatee. (Opinion delivered September 24, 1901.) LORE, C. J., and SPRUANCE and BOYCE, J. J., sitting. William Michael Byrne for plaintiff. George Lodge, for defendant. Superior Court, New Castle County, May Term, 1901. AMICABLE ACTION. CASE STATED (No. 143, February Term, 1901). OPINION. SPRUANCE, J., delivering the opinion of the Court: This action is brought by the administrator of Charles D. Kelly, against the Administrator c. t. a. of Mary Kelly, for the recovery of a legacy of $500 claimed to have been bequeathed by the will of the said Mary Kelly to the said Charles D. Kelly. The following are the material facts set forth in the case stated. Shortly before her death the said testator made and executed the following will: "Wilmington, Del., April 23, 1897. "In the name of God Amen. "I, the undersigned, being of sound mind, do in this twentythird day of April, in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-seven, declare this to be my last will and testament. I leave or bequeath for the care of my baby five hundred dollars. To my husband $10. After the paying of my personal and funeral expenses I bequeath whatsoever I have left to my father and mother. "I ask the Rev. Jas. P. Quigley to be my executor. "Witnesses: SARAH K. BURNITE, "JAMES P. QUIGLEY." her "MARY X KELLY. The testator died on or about the said twenty-third day of April, 1897, and on the twenty-ninth day of the same month said will was admitted to probate, and (the executor therein named having renounced) letters of administration c. t. a. were granted to the defendant by the Register of Wills of said county. The said Charles D. Kelly was the child of the said testator and was the person referred to in said will as "my baby." He survived his mother, and died on or about the seventh day of July, 1897, at the age of about two and a half months. Afterwards |