People v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 28 July 1892 |
| Citation | 93 Mich. 41,52 N.W. 1042 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MURPHY. |
Error to circuit court, Van Buren county; GEORGE M. BUCK, Judge.
Matthew Murphy was convicted under an indictment for selling intoxicating liquors, and brings error. Reversed.
Lester A. Tabor, for appellant.
A A. Ellis, Atty. Gen., and L. H. Titus, Pros. Atty., for the People.
The respondent was convicted in the Van Buren circuit court on an information charging that he did (on the 28th day of November, 1891) "then and there sell and furnish to one Myron C. Dolbie a certain quantity of spirituous and intoxicating liquors, to wit, one half pint of brandy, he, the said Matthew Murphy, not being a druggist or registered pharmacist selling such liquor under and in compliance with the restrictions and requirements imposed upon druggists and registered pharmacists by the general laws of the state of Michigan, but contrary to the provisions of a certain resolution adopted by the board of supervisors of the county of Van Buren, state of Michigan, on the 4th day of March, A. D. 1890, in pursuance of the provisions of Act No 207, Pub. Acts Mich. 1889; the aforesaid sale and furnishing of said spirituous and intoxicating liquors having then and there been made by said Matthew Murphy in violation of and contrary to the provisions of said Act No. 207 of the Public Acts of the state of Michigan for the year 1889." Act 207 is the "Local Option Law," so called, and the first question raised upon the record is whether a druggist who fails to comply with the requirements of the law, by filing his bond with the county treasurer, is subject to prosecution under this act. Section 1 of the act makes it unlawful for any person to sell spirituous or intoxicating liquors in any county where Act No. 207 is in force, and contains the following proviso: "Provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to druggists or registered pharmacists, in selling any such liquors under and in compliance with the restrictions and requirements imposed upon them by the general laws of this state." Section 2 provides that upon the adoption of such resolution prohibiting the manufacture and sale of liquors, as provided by the act, the provisions of the general laws relating to the liquor traffic "shall be, and the same are hereby, declared suspended and superseded: * * * provided, however, that all sales of liquors by druggists or registered pharmacists in such counties shall be under the restrictions and requirements imposed upon them by the general laws of this state." It appears that the respondent is in fact a druggist, but it does not appear that he had filed his bond, as required by law, with the county treasurer. The respondent contends that the moment it appears that he is a druggist it appears that he is not amenable to the provisions of Act No. 207, and that he must be prosecuted, if at all, under the general statute. Act No. 213, Laws 1889. We think, however, that this was not the purpose of the legislature; that it was not the design to make one law for the saloon keeper and another for the druggist, except in cases where the druggist has brought himself under the provisions of the general laws, by having filed his bond with the county treasurer as required by law. The information in this case negatives that he is a druggist selling liquor under and in compliance with the restrictions and requirements imposed upon druggists and pharmacists by the general laws of the state, and, as druggists and pharmacists who are selling liquors under and in compliance with the restrictions and requirements imposed upon them by the general laws of the state are the only ones excepted from the provisions of section 1 of the act, it follows that an offense is charged against the respondent.
2. The circuit judge instructed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial