City of Joplin v. Jacobs

• Decision Date: 18 June 1906
• Citation: 96 S.W. 219,119 Mo. App. 134
• Parties: CITY OF JOPLIN v. JACOBS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

96 S.W. 219

119 Mo. App. 134

CITY OF JOPLIN v. JACOBS.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

June 18, 1906.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS—MUNICIPAL REGULATION—PUBLIC MORALS.

A city has no power either under the authority to suppress tippling houses, or under the general law regulating dramshops, to adopt an ordinance making it unlawful for a keeper of a dramshop, defined by Rev. St. 1899, § 2990, as a person permitted by law to sell intoxicating liquors, to allow women to enter the dramshop and obtain liquor.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Howard Gray, Judge.

Louis Jacobs was charged with violating an ordinance of the city of Joplin. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, the city appeals. Affirmed.

Geo. J. Grayston, for appellant. F. M Cummings, for respondent.

ELLISON, J.

The defendant is a licensed dramshop keeper in the city of Joplin. He was charged with violating an ordinance of such city "in relation to winerooms," by having connected with, or as a part of his dramshop, a "wineroom" where female persons were allowed to enter for the purpose of being supplied with intoxicating liquor, and where they were so supplied. There was a demurrer to the complaint and it was sustained by the circuit court. The city appealed.

Much of the argument in this case has been directed to an ascertainment of the meaning of the words "tippling house," as distinguished from that of "dramshop." The cause of such contention is that the charter of cities of the third class, to which Joplin belongs, empowers such cities to suppress tippling houses and, while providing for licensing of dramshops, does not grant authority to suppress them. The city's theory is that a dramshop and a tippling house are one and the same thing, and that authority to suppress a tippling house embraces authority to prevent a sale of liquor to women by a dramshop keeper. In some jurisdictions there is a distinction made between a dramshop and a tippling house; in others, no distinction is recognized. Both are places where intoxicating liquors may be purchased at retail. To tipple, is to drink intoxicating liquors, and to take a dram is the same thing. Whether there is, in reality, any substantial difference between a dramshop and a tippling shop, we need not inquire, for the reason that in a legislative sense, there is a recognized difference and distinction made between them in this state. Our Legislature has designated a licensed place for the sale of intoxicating liquors as a dramshop, and to be a dramshop, as known to the law, it must be licensed. Section 2990, Rev. St. 1899. The charter of cities of the third class does not authorize the suppression of the dramshop, known as such by the general law. The defendant, as already stated, is a licensed dramshop keeper and so long as he does not violate the general law, or any valid ordinance, his dramshop cannot be suppressed by the city. On the other hand, there is no provision for licensing a tippling house in cities of the third class, and such house is therefore an unlicensed place, and power to suppress it is expressly granted.

The defendant is charged, as a dramshop keeper, with the violation of an ordinance which forbids the keeping of a room where intoxicating liquors are sold to women who may enter such room. It is evident from the face of the ordinance that it is not intended merely as a regulation of a dramshop, of a character like those which provide that there shall not be side doors, or closed doors, or window shades, or screens. Nor was it intended merely to prevent separate rooms...