Lambert v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1844 |
| Citation | 8 Mo. 492 |
| Parties | LAMBERT v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS CRIMINAL COURT.
BAY, Attorney-General, for The State. 1. The act of March 18th, 1835, concerning Inns and Taverns, so far as the same relates to the selling of wines or spiritous liquors, was virtually repealed by the provisions of the act of February 16th, 1841, concerning Groceries and Dramshops. 2. The right conferred by the license of the defendant must be exercised in conformity to the existing laws. The license does not confer a right to violate a positive law, but must be exercised subject to all the restraints imposed by law at the time the license was granted. 3. The finding of the jury is warranted by the evidence: indeed, the commission of the offense is clearly proven. Art. 8, § 31, of the act concerning Crimes and Punishments, Rev. Stat., p. 209.
The appellant was indicted, under the 31st section of the 8th article of the act concerning Crimes and Punishments, for selling distilled liquors after nine o'clock on Sunday. To this indictment the defendant pleaded not guilty; and a special plea, setting forth that he was duly licensed to keep an inn and tavern, by virtue of which license he did, on the day and year charged, sell distilled liquors, after nine o'clock in the forenoon of said day, “as diet to travelers and other guests, tarrying and frequenting at the inn and tavern of him, the said defendant,” as he was authorized to do by an act entitled, &c. The State demurred to the special plea, and the court sustained the dumurrer. A trial was had upon the issue of “not guilty,” and the defendant convicted and fined. Exceptions were taken to the opinion of the court on the point of law raised by the demurrer, and the correctness of that opinion is the only matter to be determined. The privilege conferred by a license to retail spiritous and fermented liquors is subject to the restraints imposed by the general law in force when the license is granted. Such a license confers no right to violate the provisions of the criminal code: the judgment of the Criminal Court of St. Louis is, therefore, affirmed.(a)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Forman's Assignee
... ... exchange, or other evidence of debt, interest at the rate ... allowed by the laws of the state, territory, or district ... where the bank is located, and no more, except that where, ... by the laws of any state, a different rate is limited ... McBroom v. Investment Co., 153 U.S. 328, 14 S.Ct ... 852, 38 L.Ed. 729; Stevens v. Lincoln, 7 Metc ... (Mass.) 528; Saunders v. Lambert, 7 Gray, 486; ... Stedman v. Bland, 26 N.C. 299. The law will not ... construe that to be a payment of illegal interest which is ... not in fact ... ...
-
State v. Halliburton
...312.040, 312.110, 312.450, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.]. But a license does not permit one to sell on Sunday. State v. Ambs, 20 Mo. 214. Lambert v. State, 8 Mo. 492, 493. The privileges secured by a license do not include the right to disregard any valid existing law. 33 Corpus Juris, Page 534, Sec......
-
Citizen Nat. Bank of Danville v. Forman's Assignee
... ... on any loan or discount made, or upon any note, bill of exchange, or other evidence of debt, interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State, territory or district where the bank is located, and no more, except that where, by the laws of any State, a different rate is limited for banks of ... Investment Co., 153 U. S., 328 (14 Sup. Ct., 852, 38 L. Ed., 129); Stevens v. Lincoln, 7 Metc. (Mass.), 528; Saunders v. Lambert, 7 ... Page 213 ... Gray, 486; Stedman v. Bland, 26 N. C., 299. The law will not construe that to be a payment of illegal interest which is not ... ...
- Hawkins v. Welch