People v. Congdon

• Decision Date: 07 July 1904
• Citation: 100 N.W. 266,137 Mich. 133
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CONGDON.

100 N.W. 266

137 Mich. 133

PEOPLE v. CONGDON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 7, 1904

Exceptions from Circuit Court, Van Buren County; John R. Carr, Judge.

J. L. Congdon was convicted of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, and he brings exceptions. Affirmed.

Chas. A. Blair, Atty. Gen., and David Anderson, Pros. Atty., for the people.

Thomas J. Cavanaugh and Cook & Donovan, for respondent.

HOOKER, J.

The impression seems to exist in the minds of some of the profession that one who professes to keep a drug store, giving a bond as a druggist, may, to all intents and purposes, keep a saloon, or habitually sell liquor as a beverage, without being liable, under the local option act or general liquor law for keeping a place where intoxicating liquor is sold as a beverage unlawfully. This is a misapprehension, as we have repeatedly shown by decided cases. Anderson v. Ct. J. (Mich.) 90 N.W. 692; People v. Remus (Mich.) 98 N.W. 397; People v. Robinson (Mich.) 98 N.W. 12; People v. Shuler (Mich.) 98 N.W. 986. We know of no case that holds that, where one is charged with the statutory offense of keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold as a beverage, the prosecutor is obliged to furnish a bill of particulars of the testimony upon which he will rely to prove the charge. See People v. Remus (Mich.) 98 N.W. 397; People v. McKinney, 10 Mich. 54, 92.

We think it unnecessary to allude to other questions, all of which are covered by our decisions.

The judgment is affirmed. The other Justices concurred.