People v. Anschutz, 94
| Decision Date | 05 January 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 94,94 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ANSCHUTZ. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Curry & Curry, Saginaw, Peter F. Cicinelli, Saginaw, for defendant and appellant.
Frank G. Millard, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Kenneth D. Plaxton, Pros. Atty. for Gratiot County, Alma, for the People.
Before the Entire Bench.
Defendant Frank Anschutz, a licensed vendor of beer for consumption on the premises, was arrested on a warrant charging him with selling, through the act of one Mary Posey, his clerk or agent, one bottle of beer to James Denn, then 19 years of age. Upon arraignment on information in the circuit court, defendant stood mute and a plea of not guilty was entered.
At the examination before the justice of the peace, Anschutz moved to quash the complaint and for a dismissal. This was denied. This motion was renewed in the circuit court on the ground that the allegations in the complaint set forth an offense cognizable by a justice of the peace, and one not within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. This motion was also denied. At the close of the people's case a motion to quash and to direct a verdict of not guilty was made and denied. At the close of all the testimony the several motions were renewed and again denied. At the conclusion of the agrument the trial judge delivered a charge to the jury in which he said in part:
'So, under my interpretation of this case, there is no question of fact to go to you. It is undisputed that beer was sold in Mr. Anschutz's tavern, and it was sold by one of his employees; whether the employee was for that purpose or not doesn't matter. It is another way that we say of 'beating the devil around the bush.' And the law is that way for this reason, that the licensee is engaging in a very lucrative business, and he operates the same at his peril. Otherwise, he don't need to take that chance, and he takes that chance if he gets himself a license and operates in the tavern business.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and Anschutz was sentenced to be confined in the county jail for 60 days, and ordered to pay a fine of $300. The trial judge filed a lengthy opinion in support of the denial of a motion for new trial. On appeal, upon leave granted, Anschutz raises 15 questions in which he argues that the court erred in denying the various motions. It is also asserted that the court erred in its charge and in refusing to give certain instructions requested by the defendant.
The controlling question concerns the claimed denial of defendant's constitutional right to have a jury render a general verdict on the merits, and in the court's denial of due process by direction to the jury to render a verdict of guilty.
Anschutz is the proprietor of a cafe at Breckenridge, Michigan, in which he serves food, sells candy and tobacco, and operates a soda bar. In the rear of the cafe is another bar where beer is served. The soda bar and beer bar are in the same room but are operated as separate departments. The testimony shows that if a customer asked for beer in the front part of the cafe, he would be told to go to the rear bar.
Anschutz had a surgical operation on December 6, 1950, and at the time of the alleged offense was not in his cafe, but was recuperating at home. Mary Posey, who was named in the complaint as Anschutz's clerk or agent, was a switchboard operator at Midland, Michigan. On the week-end in question she had gone to her home in the village of Breckenridge to spend her birthday with her parents. Mrs. Luella Anschutz, defendant's wife, went to Mary's home on Saturday afternoon to see if she would help at the cafe that night Anschutz was not aware of this incident, nor did he know that Mary was coming to the cafe that evening to help serve customers. Mary was told by Mrs. Anschutz to work at the soda bar in the front of the cafe. While Mary was on her way to the kitchen in the rear of the building, James Denn, who had entered the place with four companions, asked her to bring them some beer. Mary inquired as to Denn's age, and he stated he was over 21. Mary did not request any more proof, but went to the bar and brought five bottles of beer to a table in the rear of the cafe. A deputy sheriff, who was in the front of the cafe, then sent for Denn, and said that he was a minor, whereupon Mary Wallin, another employee and the oldest one in point of service, immediately removed Denn's beer from the table before it was consumed.
Defendant claims that in the last 100 years this Court has been called upon to review...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Antkoviak
...case law does support a broader right under the state constitution. Goodwin, supra at 473, 245 N.W.2d 96, citing People v. Anschutz, 335 Mich. 375, 56 N.W.2d 224 (1953); Burnett, supra; People v. Bell, 53 Mich.App. 161, 218 N.W.2d 873 At first glance, People v. Marshall, 82 Mich.App. 92, 26......
-
People v. Deneweth, Docket No. 3085
...v. People (1875), 32 Mich. 1, 2; similarly, see People v. Clark (1940), 295 Mich. 704, 707, 295 N.W. 370, and People v. Anschutz (1953), 335 Mich. 375, 380, 56 N.W.2d 224. This principle was recently reiterated by our Supreme Court in People v. Woody (1968), 380 Mich. 332, 157 N.W.2d 201, w......
-
People v. Gaydosh
...or otherwise improperly invaded the province of the jury. People v. Clark, 295 Mich. 704, 295 N.W. 370 (1940); People v. Anschutz, 335 Mich. 375, 380-381, 56 N.W.2d 224 (1953); 75A Am Jur 2d, Trial, §§ 1017-1024, pp Our Supreme Court as well has concluded that an instruction must not exclud......
-
Anschutz v. Michigan Liquor Control Commission
...A like conclusion follows in the case at bar. The principle recognized in the foregoing decisions was approved in People v. Anschutz, 335 Mich. 375, 380, 56 N.W.2d 224, 226, where it was 'It is true that in this State the proprietor of a tavern or bar operates the same at his peril, and mus......