
    Henry Manis v. The State.
    Election Gboend. Selling liquor near. Under the act of 1869-70, e. 22, s. 4, prohibiting giving away or selling liquor, on election days, near an election ground, a gift or sale within one mile or one mile and a quarter of such election ground, is clearly prohibited.
    EJROM HAWKINS.
    Circuit Court. Before E. E. GilleNWATERS, J.
    The evidence in the case of "Wilson Johnson was as follows: “I bought some liquor of the defendant on the 13th day of May, 1871. It was on the day of an election. I got the liquor from the defendant at his house, where he kept it to sell; he lived about one mile, or one mile and a quarter from the election ground; got some liquor in the morning and some in the evening. Got the liquor in the morning, and went to the election ground; when he got there the polls were open, but could not say whether they were when he bought the liquor; stopped on the way.
    Attorney General Heiskele, for the State.
   TurNEY, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

By statute of 1869-70, c. 22, s. 4, it is enacted “That no liquor shop in this State shall be kept open on election days, nor shall any person, on said days, give or. sell intoxicating liquors to any person, for any purpose, at or near an election ground:” Shankland’s Stat., 108.

By s. 3, c. 53, of Acts of 1869-70, “That all persons convicted under the 4th section of Acts of 1869-70, c. 22, passed December 1, 1869, of which this is amendatory, shall be punished by fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred, or by imprisonment in the county jail at the discretion of the court: Bee. 4. That the word 'day, in the' act which this is intended to amend, shall mean from sunrise to sunset:” Shank. Stat., 109.

The purpose of these enactments is, to preserve good order and conserve peace. To make these objects more certain of attainment the expression “at or near an election ground,” is used. If the giving or selling is not at the election ground, but at a place not distant or remote, but of reasonably easy or convenient access, the party so giving or selling is guilty.

In this case, the offense was committed within a mile and a quarter, either distance being very certainly within the scope of the operation of the statute.

A contrary holding would make the law a dead letter on the statute book, as it would authorize parties to constantly violate it by removing to a distance of one, two, or even more miles, and then sell or give intoxicating liquors to persons attending, or proposing to attend elections, who could and would, by joint contributions, get Up joint-stock jug-groceries, thus keeping down a scantiness in supply of the exhilarating as well as warlike fluid, as has been often done, in violation of the “Camp Ground” law.

As the transcript fails to bring up the judgment of the Circuit Court, we can only announce the principle decisive of the question presented, leaving the case with the court below.  