People v. Boos

Citation120 N.W. 11,155 Mich. 407
PartiesPEOPLE v. BOOS.
Decision Date02 February 1909
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

155 Mich. 407
120 N.W. 11

PEOPLE
v.
BOOS.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 2, 1909.


Exceptions from Superior Court of Grand Rapids; William J. Stuart, Judge.

Phillip Boos, Sr., was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors without a tax receipt, and he brings exceptions. Affirmed.

Argued before BLAIR, C. J., and GRANT, MONTGOMERY, BROOKE, and OSTRANDER, JJ.

[120 N.W. 12]

Rodgers & Rodgers, for appellant.

John W. Powers, Pros. Atty., for the People.


MONTGOMERY, J.

The respondent was convicted of the offense of engaging in the business of selling at retail spirituous, malt, brewed, and fermented liquors without having received from the county treasurer and posting in his place of business a tax receipt required by law. Testimony offered on behalf of the people tended to show: That respondent had a place of business at the northwest corner of Alpine avenue and North street, in the city of Grand Rapids, and that on the 26th of April, 1907, two police officers visited the place, and that, looking through the window, they saw what one of the witnesses said was ‘lager beer’ sold. The other, although not so positive in his statements, also thought it was lager beer, some of it from bottles with the label of the Furnisture City Brewing Company on them. That this occurred in the second room, and that respondent stood in the front room, and admitted different men into the room, and apparently directed them into the second room. No testimony was offered on behalf of the respondent. The contention on behalf of the respondent in this court is that the people failed to show that the business conducted at this place was the business of the defendant; second, that they had not shown that the business conducted was not a licensed business; and, third, that they had not shown that the business of selling intoxicating liquors was being carried on.

As to the last contention, it is sufficient to say that this is a question of fact as to which the evidence offered on behalf of the people was abundant to carry the case to the jury. The testimony that the bottles were labeled with the name of the brewing company, and the statement of one of the witnesses that it was lager beer, was sufficient evidence for this purpose. This in connection with the surroundings the paraphernalia of a saloon being present was enough to indicate that the parties, whoever they were that were conducting these sales, were engaged in the business.

It is next contended that the court was in error in admitting the testimony bearing upon the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT