Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 02 July 1907 |
| Citation | 152 Ala. 61,44 So. 555 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; A. A. Evans, Judge.
Dan Johnson was convicted of retailing intoxicants without a license, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The defendant was indicted for retailing spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors without license and contrary to law. The facts disclosed by the state's evidence was that Dan Johnson sold to the witness a pint of liquor for 25 cents and that the purchase was made about 6 o'clock in the morning at the residence of defendant in the city of Eufaula. It was admitted that the defendant had a license to sell liquor at a certain place in the same beat, same precinct, in which his house was situated, but a half mile from the place of the sale. Defendant offered to introduce the license authorizing him to sell liquor at his barroom, a half mile removed from his home; but the court sustained an objection to the introduction of the same.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Acts 1903, p. 222, which is amendatory of the Code of 1896, § 4125, among other things, provides that the license "shall not be transferable, nor shall it entitle the holder thereof to carry on any other business or do any other act than that named therein, nor at any other location than that therein specified." The defendant admitted that he was conducting a barroom a half mile from his house, the place where the state proved he sold the liquor, and the former was the place to which the license related, and it did not authorize him to sell liquor at his home, a half mile from his saloon. Jebeles v. State, 117 Ala. 174, 23 So. 676. In the case of Hochstadler v. State, 73 Ala. 24, the defendant was conducting his business in two rooms connected by an archway, one room being used for whites and the other for negroes, and the court held that it was "but one business, under one management, and in one locality"; the test being "unity of management, ownership, and locality." In the case at bar there was no unity in locality, and the trial court did not err in excluding the license.
As the state proved the sale, the defendant was not entitled to the general charge requested by him, which was properly refused. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owen v. West Alabama Butane Co.
...other location than that therein specified.' The express provisions of § 632 seem to require the decision in Jebeles. In Johnson v. State, 152 Ala. 61, 44 So. 555, the court held that a license to sell liquor at a saloon was not a license to sell at taxpayer's home a half mile from the salo......
-
Anniston Electric & Gas Co. v. State
... ... operate a street railway in Anniston does not authorize its ... operation in Oxford and Hobson City ... The ... test of the sufficiency of one license is "unity of ... management, ownership, and locality." Hochstadler v ... State, 73 Ala. 24; Johnson v. State, 152 Ala ... 61, 44 So. 555. While unity of management and ownership of ... the street railway here in question exists, unity of locality ... does not, since such railway is operated in three separate ... and distinct units of territory as fixed by the statute ... It ... ...
- Gulf Yellow Pine Co. v. Urquhart