cusable, unless it was manifestly beyond the scope of his authority. The circumstances of the case are then held to have justified the militiaman's action. TRADING STAMPS. (CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY.— EXERCISE OF POLICE POWERj VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OK APPEAL.
In Young r. Commonwealth, 45 South eastern Reporter 327, the highest tri bunal in Virginia considered the con stitutionality of Acts General Assembly, 1898-98, p. 442, prohibiting the use of trading stamps. The ground of attack was that the act violated the constitutional guaranties of liberty contained in the Four teenth Amendment, and in Article i. Section I of the State constitution. The court held the act void. The opinion defines liberty as including the right to follow such pursuits as may be best adapted to the citizen's facul ties, and which will afford him the highest enjoyment; to live and work where he will, and earn a livelihood by any lawful calling; and for that purpose to make necessary con tracts. (Citing Powell v. Penn., 127 U. S. 678, 18 Sup. Ct. 992, 1257, 32 L. Ed. 253; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 17 Sup. Ct. 427, 41 L. Ed. 832; People v. Gillson, 109 N. Y. 389, 17 N. E. 343, 4 Am. St. Rep. 465; State -с. Dalton [R. I.] 46 AH. 234, 48 L. R. A. 775, 84 Am. St. Rep. 818.)
The act can only be sustained as an exercise of police power. Then follows an exhaustive discussion of the case of State г Dalton, 46 AH. 274, 48 L. R. A. 775, 84 Am. St. Rep. 818, in which the supreme court of Rhode Island held a similar act unconstitutional. The absence of any element of chance in the distribution of premiums, is relied on as tak ing the case outside of the police power. TRADING STAMPS. INAL OFFKNSE.)
(GIFT ENTERPRISE.— CRIM ALABAMA SUPREME COURT.
State r. Shugart, 35 Southern Reporter 28, was an appeal from an order dis charging on habeas corpus a defendant who was in custody on the charge of violating Criminal Code, Section 4808, prohibiting lotteries or other gift enter prises. The court sustained the defend ant's release, holding that a trading stamp business which he had been conducting, was not a "gift enterprise." The case turns on the definition of that term which, on a some what elaborate review of authorities, the court decides to mean a scheme for the dis tribution of articles depending on some element of chance. The case of Lansburg v. District of Columbia, n App. D. С., 512 attaching a different meaning to the term, is distin guished in view of the statutory definition there construed, and is tacitly disapproved.
