Naylor v. the City of Galesburg.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1870 |
| Citation | 56 Ill. 285,1870 WL 6518 |
| Parties | ROBERT NAYLORv.THE CITY OF GALESBURG. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Knox County; the Hon. ARTHUR A. SMITH, Judge, presiding.
This was a prosecution against Naylor, to recover the penalty for an alleged violation of an ordinance of the city of Galesburg, prohibiting the sale of spirituous liquor. The proceedings were commenced before a justice of the peace, and removed into the circuit court by appeal, where a trial resulted in favor of the city.
Mr. FREDERICK A. WILLOUGHBY, for the appellant.
Messrs. KITCHELL & ARNOLD, for the appellee.
This was a proceeding, under an ordinance of the city of Galesburg, imposing a penalty for the sale of intoxicating liquor.
The city proved, on the trial, that appellant had, at one time, sold two gallons of whisky, and at another time, three gallons; and then offered the following ordinances:
Ҥ 3. Whoever shall, by himself, his clerk, agent or servant, sell any alcoholic, or intoxicating drink whatever, or any intoxicating liquor, in any quantity, or shall deliver or give away the same to be drank, or used as a beverage, shall be subject to a penalty of not less than fifty dollars.
§ 7. The sale, barter, exchange, or giving away of all intoxicating drinks, or liquors, is prohibited, except by licensed druggists, and only allowed by them for sacramental, mechanical, medicinal, chemical purposes, and for a second or subsequent convictions under this division, the party offending shall be subject to a penalty of not less than seventy-five dollars.”
Appellant then introduced this ordinance:
“Whoever, except a licensed druggist, shall, by himself, his clerk, agent or servant, sell any alcoholic or intoxicating drink whatever, or any intoxicating liquor, in any quantity, or in any house, room or place where such liquors are kept, stored or delivered, give away the same to any person for use as a beverage, shall be subject to a penalty of not less than fifty dollars.” It was admitted that the ordinances offered by appellant had been adopted subsequently to the commencement of the prosecution, and prior to the trial in the circuit court.
There is such a repugnance between these ordinances, that the last must operate as a repeal of the former. In the latter, licensed druggists are excepted from the penalty. It also contains additional words of limitation; and there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miles v. State
...to laws enacted by the General Assembly"); Spears v. County of Modoc, 101 Cal. 303, 307, 35 P. 869, 870-871 (1894); Naylor v. The City of Galesburg, 56 Ill. 285, 287 (1870) (state saving statute "applies solely to statutes enacted by the legislature, and not to the laws of a corporation; an......
-
City of St. Louis v. Calhoun
...21 Pick. 373; Norris v. Crocker, 54 U.S. 440; U. S. v. Tynen, 78 U.S. 88; Barton v. Incorporation of Gadsden, 79 Ala. 495; Naylor v. City of Galesburg, 56 Ill. 285; In Town of Rutherford v. Swink, 96 Tenn. 564; City of Burlington v. Estlow, 43 N. J. L. 13; Kansas City v. Clark, 68 Mo. 588; ......
-
Tully v. Town of Northfield.
...v. Nichol, 36 Ill. 161; Newkirk v. Cone, 18 Ill. 449. As to jurisdiction of criminal court: Wiggins v. Chicago, 68 Ill. 372; Naylor v. Galesburg, 56 Ill. 285. The new law did not repeal the former one so as to affect prosecutions for an offense under the prior law: Rev. Stat. 1874, 1012; Ro......
-
State v. Muir
...of Law (2 Ed.), p. 252; Railroad v. Harris, 12 Colo. 226; Macinnary v. Denver, 17 Colo. 302; Williams v. Augusta, 4 Ga. 513; Naylor v. Galesburg, 56 Ill. 285; Wiggins Chicago, 58 Ill. 372; State v. Henchert, 42 La. Ann. 271; Monroe v. Menser, 35 La. Ann. 1193; Cooper v. People, 41 Mich. 403......