City of Duluth v. Evans

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WILSON
• Citation: City of Duluth v. Evans, 158 Minn. 450, 197 N.W. 737 (Minn. 1924)
• Decision Date: 21 March 1924
• Docket Number: No. 23868.,23868.
• Parties: CITY OF DULUTH v. EVANS.

158 Minn. 450

197 N.W. 737

CITY OF DULUTH

v.EVANS.

No. 23868.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 21, 1924.

Appeal from District Court, St. Louis County; Martin Hughes, H. A. Dancer, Bert Fesler, and C. R. Magney, Judges.

Ben F. Evans was convicted of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Record examined, and held, evidence sufficient to sustain the judgment.

A city ordinance regulating liquor traffic is not inconsistent with general law merely because penalties in the former are less than in the latter.

A city ordinance covering a subject also covered by a state law, is valid, if it is consistent with the state law and preserves the standard of regulation as moulded by such general law. McHugh & O'Donnell, of Duluth, for appellant.

John B. Richards, City Atty., and Harry E. Weinberg, Asst. City Atty., both of Duluth, for respondent.

WILSON, C. J.

The defendant was convicted in the municipal court of the city of Duluth of the offense of selling intoxicating liquors in violation of City Ordinance No. 1472 of the city of Duluth. Defendant made a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and he appealed to the district court of St. Louis county. That court affirmed the order of the trial court, and, from the order of the district court denying defendant's motion for a new trial, he has appealed to this court.

[1] 1. It is claimed that the judgment of the court is not justified by the evidence. It is sufficient to say that a witness testified that he bought a bottle of liquor, and two officers testified that the defendant admitted having sold the bottle to the alleged purchaser. This testimony is denied, and things are shown tending to discredit the principal witness, but these only go to the credibility, and there is ample evidence, if true, and the trial court has found it to be true, to sustain the conclusion that the defendant was guilty of illegally selling liquor-an offense included in the complaint which was broad enough to cover a ‘blind tiger.’

2. Defendant also says that his conviction is wrongful for the reason that he claims the ordinance under which he was convicted is void. The first ground given for this assertion is that the ordinance is an attempt to duplicate chapter 455, G. L. 1919, as amended, except that it provides lesser penalties than the state law, and is therefore inconsistent with the general law and is void. In this claim we cannot concur. We do recognize that if a city should pass an ordinance regulating liquor traffic which would assume to lower the standard of regulation as provided by the state law, it would be inconsistent with the general law and void. Evans v. City of Redwood Falls, 103 Minn. 314, 115 N. W. 200. This ordinance and the state law are very much...