Daniel Cronin v. Frank Adams

• Decision Date: 04 January 1904
• Docket Number: No. 100,100
• Citation: 24 S.Ct. 219,192 U.S. 108,48 L.Ed. 365,49 L.R.A. 111
• Parties: DANIEL CRONIN, Plff. in Err. , v. FRANK ADAMS, John T. Bottom, and William H. Griffith, Constituting the Fire and Police Board of the City of Denver, and Hamilton Armstrong, Chief of Police of the City of Denver
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

192 U.S. 108

24 S.Ct. 219

48 L.Ed. 365

DANIEL CRONIN, Plff. in Err.,

v FRANK ADAMS, John T. Bottom, and William H. Griffith, Constituting the Fire and Police Board of the City of Denver, and Hamilton Armstrong, Chief of Police of the City of Denver.

No. 100.

Argued and submitted December 16, 1903.

Decided January 4, 1904.

Mr. Milton Smith for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 108-111 intentionally omitted] Messrs.Charles R. Brock,Henry A. Lindsley, and Halsted L. Ritter for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

This suit was brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, who were officers of the city of Denver, to restrain them from enforcing an ordinance of the city on the ground that the ordinance was 'contrary to the provision of the Constitution of the state of Colorado and amendments thereto, and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States,' and 'contrary to the laws of the state of Colorado, guaranteeing civil rights to all persons, and contrary to other statutes of the state of Colorado.'

A preliminary injunction was alllowed. It was made perpetual upon hearing, by decree of the court. The decree was reversed by the supreme court of the state, and this writ of error was then sued out.

Sections 745 and 746 of article 15 of the ordinance of Denver, which are complained of and attacked, are as follows:

'Sec. 745. Each and every liquor saloon, dram shop, or tippling house keeper, . . . who shall have or keep, in connection with or as part of such liquor saloon, dram shop, or tippling house, any wine room or other place, either with or without door or doors, curtain or curtains, or screen of any kind, into which any female person shall be permitted to enter from the outside, or from such liquor saloon, dram shop, or tippling house, and there be supplied with any kind of liquor whatsoever, shall, upon conviction, be fined as hereinafter provided.

'Sec. 746. No person . . . having charge or control of any liquor saloon or place where intoxicating or malt liquors are sold or given away, or any place adjacent thereto, or connected therewith in any manner whatsoever, either by doors or otherwise, shall suffer or permit any female person to be or remain in such liquor saloon, dram shop, tippling house, or other place where intoxicating or malt liquors are sold or given away, for the purpose of there being supplied with any kind of liquor whatsoever. No person owning or having charge or control of any liquor saloon, dram shop, or tippling house shall employ or procure, or cause to be employed or procured, any female person to wait or in any manner attend on any person in any dram shop, tippling house, or liquor saloon, or in any place adjacent thereto or connected therewith where intoxicating or malt liquors are sold or given away, nor shall any female person be or remain in any dram shop, tippling house, liquor saloon, or place adjacent thereto or connected therewith, and wait or attend on any person, or solicit drinks in any such place.'

The supreme court held that those sections did not violate the Constitution of the state, and that they were authorized by the statutes of the state, and sustained...