“ ‘ “[Wjhere a literal interpretation of the language of a statute will lead to absurd results, or contravene the manifest purpose of the Legislature, as otherwise expressed, the reason and purpose of the law shall control and the strict letter thereof shall be disregarded.” ’ ”
How later courts described this case
- “ ‘ “[Wjhere a literal interpretation of the language of a statute will lead to absurd results, or contravene the manifest purpose of the Legislature, as otherwise expressed, the reason and purpose of the law shall control and the strict letter thereof shall be disregarded.” ’ ”
- "`[W]here a literal interpretation of the language of a statute will lead to absurd results, or contravene the manifest purpose of the Legislature, as otherwise expressed, the reason and purpose of the law shall control and the strict letter thereof shall be disregarded,'"
- “[W]here a literal interpretation of the language of a statute will lead to absurd results . . . the reason and purpose of the law shall control and the strict letter thereof shall be disregarded.”
- “It is [the Court’s role] to construe the laws and not to make them.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Allen, J.,
concurring: I concur fully in the calm judicial opinion of Associate Justice IIolee, which is confined to a consideration of the legal questions raised by the appeal, without reference to newspaper reports and other extraneous matters, which can only excite the. passions and confuse the judgment, but since these have been introduced into the discussion it is possibly well to restate the exact question we have to decide.
The defendant is indicted under C. S., 3370, of the prohibition law for “soliciting orders for intoxicating liquors,” and his defense is that he was offering for sale flavoring extracts or essences, section 3375, of the same prohibition law providing that the prohibition against sale, manufacture, etc., of intoxicating liquors shall not be construed to forbid “the sale of flavoring extracts or essences when sold as such.”
In the brief filed by the State and signed by the Attorney-General and Assistant Attorney-General, after quoting the two sections, 3370 and 3375, it is said, “the terms of the statute permits the sale of these extracts when sold as such.”
This being true, the defendant cannot be convicted under our State law if he was selling extracts or essences as such, and not for beverage purposes.
The defendant testified: “I was offering these extracts for flavoring purposes.” .
*629 He also offered evidence, which was excluded by the court, that the extracts were prepared in accordance with a formula approved by the National Formulary, except that they contained 10 per cent less of alcohol than was permitted by the National Government; also, that this formula was submitted to the National Prohibition Commissioner of New York, and that he issued permits for the manufacture and sale of the extracts.
There was also evidence that the extracts could not be used for beverage purposes, and were “as undrinkable as shellac or shoe polish.”
The judge in the court below not only excluded the evidence referred to, but charged the jury that if they believed the evidence of the State to find the defendant guilty, and this Court is of opinion, and so decides, that the defendant was entitled to the benefit of the evidence excluded, and that the whole ease ought to have been submitted to the jury upon the question as to whether the extracts were offered for sale as flavoring extracts or for beverage purposes.
The witness Braswell, it is true, stated that a man was arrested because he was drunk from drinking extracts, but he added to his statement, “No; that was not any that Mr. Barksdale sold.”
The whole of the answer of Dr. Smith to the question asked him by the court was as follows: “Yes; 15 per cent or 16 per cent will preserve any vegetable product, but it is necessary to use more to get them into solution. Our vanilla extract that is in evidence here, that cannot be made properly and preserved with less than 40 per cent. It might be with 2 or 2% per cent less, hut approximately 40 per cent. We put 40 per cent because it is necessary to hold the vanilla in solution — to go to make up the flavor it requires that per cent to hold them in solution.”
If the State law as it stands is defective and imperfect, it is for the-Legislature to correct, it. We have no such power.