People v. Blake

• Decision Date: 06 February 1884
• Citation: 52 Mich. 566,18 N.W. 360
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. BLAKE.

18 N.W. 360

52 Mich. 566

PEOPLE v. BLAKE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 6, 1884

The law directing saloons to be closed on Sundays, requires the proprietor to see to it at his peril that they are not opened by others in his employ; that no business is carried on therein which would require the doors to be opened or persons to enter on that day.

Error to Ottawa.

CAMPBELL J., dissents.

J.J. Van Riper, for plaintiff.

S.L Lowing, for defendant and appellant.

SHERWOOD J.

The respondent was charged in the complaint and warrant in this case with keeping his saloon open on Sunday, the fifteenth day of October, 1882, at the city of Grand Haven, and upon a trial thereof before a justice of the peace was convicted.

Upon certiorari to the circuit court for Ottawa county, the judgment of the justice was affirmed, and the respondent brings the case here by writ of error.

The first and second errors alleged are that there was no testimony tending to show Blake was proprietor of the saloon or responsible for its being open on the Sunday stated, or that he authorized or sanctioned the opening of the saloon by the bartender.

The third error alleged does no more than affirm the statement made in the first two, and may be considered with them.

The record contains all the testimony, from which it appears one J. O'Brien was sworn and testified that he had known the respondent a year and over, and that he kept a saloon for the sale of liquor at the place stated in the complaint and warrant; that he was at the same on the Sunday mentioned in the warrant, in the forenoon, and saw the bartender there behind the bar, and witness bought some whisky there of him that he went in the saloon with another man, and had no trouble getting in; stood there about 10 minutes; that Blake kept the saloon; the door was locked, but the bartender let us in; we went in and out by the side door. John Vogel also testified that he knew Blake and his place of business on the day named, and that he kept a saloon; that he had been in his place several times; he could not be certain about the day, but thinks he got a glass of liquor there that morning; another man was with him. I think enough appears in the foregoing statements to sustain the conclusion of the justice that Blake kept the saloon, and it was open on the day charged. But aside from this testimony, it is admitted by respondent that parties were admitted into the saloon on that day by the bartender. We think the justice was correct in his rulings upon this branch of the case.

The remaining three alleged errors relate to the authority from defendant to the bar-keeper to do the unlawful act complained of. The law sought to be applied in this case is a wholesome regulation, found necessary to be made under the public power of the state, in order to preserve the peace and quiet of the community where saloons are located, and the orderly conduct of such persons, on the Sabbath, as are in the habit of frequenting such places, and...