City of Duluth v. Abrahamson

• Decision Date: 20 October 1905
• Docket Number: 14,432 - (42)
• Citation: 104 N.W. 682,96 Minn. 39
• Parties: CITY OF DULUTH v. JULIUS ABRAHAMSON
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

104 N.W. 682

96 Minn. 39

CITY OF DULUTH v. JULIUS ABRAHAMSON

Nos. 14,432 - (42)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

October 20, 1905

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the municipal court of Duluth, W. L. Windom, J. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Municipal Ordinance.

A city ordinance was entitled "Sale of Intoxicating Liquors." The body of the act embraced a provision prohibiting the opening of licensed saloons on the Sabbath. Held, the evidence was sufficient to justify the conviction of the licensee.

Municipal Ordinance.

The ordinance was not in conflict with section 27, article 4, of the constitution, and section 59 of the city charter.

Alexander Marshall and Warner E. Whipple, for appellant.

Bert Fesler and T. J. McKeon, for respondent.

OPINION

LEWIS, J.

Appellant was convicted in the municipal court of the city of Duluth for unlawfully and wilfully keeping open a saloon on the Sabbath, contrary to the terms of the city ordinance regulating the sale of intoxicating liquor.

1. The trial court was justified in its conclusions, and the question of the sufficiency of the evidence does not merit any extended discussion. The testimony of the prosecuting witnesses was to the effect that they found the door of the saloon open on a certain Sunday, and that several persons were in the barroom. It was not necessary for the state to prove that intoxicating liquor was actually sold at the time and the truthfulness of the explanation offered on behalf of the defense, accounting for the presence of the appellant licensee, his bartender, and another, was, under the circumstances, clearly for the determination of the court. It is not intended to overrule what was stated in the case of State v. Clemmensen, 92 Minn. 191, 99 N.W. 640, to the effect that the mere fact that a saloonkeeper may keep the door of his saloon open after the hour of eleven o'clock would not, standing alone, constitute a violation of the statute. What we do hold is that the court was warranted in finding that upon the occasion in question appellant's saloon was open for the purpose of carrying on the licensed business.

2. The ordinance was not invalid as being in contravention of section 27, article 4, of the constitution, and section 59 of the city charter. The ordinance in question is entitled "Sale of Intoxicating Liquors," and comprises fourteen sections, embracing the entire subject of the sale of intoxicants in the city of Duluth; provides for the issuance of a license, amount of the fee, bond, sureties applications for license, hearing upon the same, license when not to be granted and how to be used, and penalties; and, among other things, contains a provision requiring all places where the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be licensed to be closed during all hours of every Sunday and every general or special election day, and that upon week days they shall not be kept open later than eleven at night or earlier than five in the morning. The point urged, going to the unconstitutionality of the ordinance, is that the title specifically refers to the sale, whereas the...