Kurtz v. People

• Decision Date: 18 January 1876
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Joseph Kurtz v. The People

33 Mich. 279

Joseph Kurtz v. The People

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 18, 1876

Heard January 11, 1876

Error to Recorder's Court of Detroit.

Judgment affirmed.

Otto Kirchner, for plaintiff in error, cited: Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 269; Mewherter v. Price, 11 Ind. 199; State v. Powers 14 Ind. 195.

Andrew J. Smith, Attorney General, for the People, cited: Sears v. Cottrell, 5 Mich. 251; Tabor v. Cook, 15 Mich. 322; Tyler v. People, 8 Mich. 321; People v. Gallagher, 4 Mich. 244; Newland v. Marsh, 19 Ill. 384; People v. Supervisors, 17 Mich. 241; County v. Mayor, 1 Seld. 285; Guilford v Cornell, 18 Barb. 640; 4 Seld. 241; Murphy v Menard, 11 Tex. 673; Walker v. Caldwell, 4 Am. R., 298; Dans v. State, 7 Md. 151; Washington v. Murry, 4 Cal.; People v. Mahoney, 13 Mich. 481; Inkster v. Carver, 16 Mich. 484; People v. Ins. Co., 19 Mich. 392; Cooley Const. Lim., 146.

OPINION

Campbell, J:

Plaintiff in error was convicted of keeping open on Sunday his saloon for the sale of intoxicating liquors at retail, and of selling such liquors at retail on that day. The conviction was under section 1 of "an act to prevent the sale or delivery of intoxicating liquors, wine and beer, to minors, and to drunken persons, and to habitual drunkards; to provide a remedy against persons selling liquor to husbands or children in certain cases," approved May 3, 1875.

The clause under which he was convicted is as follows:

"All saloons, restaurants, bars, bar-rooms, in taverns or otherwise, and all places of public resort where intoxicating liquors are sold, either at wholesale or retail, shall (unless otherwise determined and directed by the board of trustees or common council of the village or city where such saloons, restaurants, bars or bar-rooms are kept) be closed on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, and on each week-day night, from and after the hour of eleven o'clock until six o'clock of the morning of the succeeding day. But this provision shall not be construed to prohibit druggists from selling such liquors at such times, upon the written request or order of some practicing physician of the town, village or city. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon a conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, and costs of prosecution, and on failure to pay such fine and costs shall be imprisoned in the county jail not less than ten nor more than ninety days, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court."

The first part of the section prohibits sales to minors and drunkards, and sales made by persons who have not filed a bond under the act.

It is claimed by the plaintiff in error that the provision under which he was convicted is invalid, because that provision is not within the title of the act, if applied to such cases as his, where the sale is not made to minors or drunkards; and that if meant so to apply, the act is void, under that clause of the constitution which requires that "no law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title."

It is claimed that the statute so construed is a law to enforce the proper observance of Sunday, and that no such purpose is disclosed in the title.

There is no question now presented concerning the somewhat extraordinary proviso, which seems to be based on the idea that a municipality can be allowed to suspend the penal laws of the state; as the complaint negatives any such attempt on the part of the city of Detroit where this conviction was obtained, the case stands before us' on the statute alone.

There is no ambiguity in the statute. It very clearly intends to close up the places named against liquor selling, on Sundays, or after eleven at night. It is not important on this record to examine critically into the meaning of the term "closed," as applicable to houses, rooms, or parts of rooms. It is clearly meant that the sales at least shall be entirely stopped, and the traffic shut off effectually, so that drinking, and the conveniences for drinking, shall be no longer accessible, and those who frequent them for that purpose shall be dispersed. Common sense will dispose of such cases readily enough. Every body knows practically what closing a saloon or drinking place means, and there is no occasion for seeking or solving imaginary difficulties.

We are brought, then, to the question whether under such a title as that of the act in question, ...