
    Maynard N. Clement, as State Commissioner of Excise, Plaintiff, v. Four Barrels of Beer, and other liquors; Arnold Hunzicker, Answering Defendant.
    (Supreme Court, Oneida Trial Term,
    January, 1910.)
    Constitutional law — Deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law — Authorizing confiscation and destruction of property.
    The seizure and confiscation of liquors, pursuant to section 33 of the Liquor Tax Law, constitute a taking by due process of law; and the provisions of said section are a legitimate exercise by the Legislature of the police power inherent in a sovereign State.
    Proceeding brought under section 33 of the Liquor Tax Law.
    Robert J. Fish, for plaintiff.
    A. 0. Woodruff, for defendant.
   Rogers, J.

After a careful study of the elaborate and learned briefs of the respective counsel, and the authorities therein cited and bearing in mind the rules,

. (a) That every presumption is to be indulged in favor of a statute, and

(b) That a trial court should hesitate to pronounce a statute unconstitutional, 1 have, for the purpose of this trial, concluded:

(1) That section 33 of the Liquor Tax Law (Laws 1909, chap. 39) makes provision for due trial’of the right to seize liquors, and that seizure and confiscation,'as and pursuant to the provisions therein prescribed, are takings by “ due process of law.”

(2) That said statute is a legitimate exercise by the Legislature of the police power inherent in a- sovereign State.

(3) That the statute is not in contravention of the provisions of the Constitution, and

(4) That the plaintiff is entitled to judgment according to the prayer of the complaint.

Judgment for plaintiff.  