People v. Dayton
| Decision Date | 28 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Docket No. 4701,3 |
| Citation | 18 Mich.App. 313,171 N.W.2d 57 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Starr DAYTON, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Donald A. Burge, Pros. Atty., Kalamazoo County, Kalamazoo, for plaintiff-appellant.
Joseph J. Jerkins, McKinley & Jerkins, Kalamazoo, for defendant-appellee.
Before GILLIS, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and V. J. BRENNAN, JJ.
The people appeal from an order quashing an information and discharging the defendant, Starr Dayton.
Starr Dayton was charged with violating the Michigan Liquor Control Act (C.L.1948, § 436.32 (Stat.Ann.1957, Rev. § 18.1003)) by selling liquor without a license. A preliminary examination was conducted at which the people made the following showing. George Behrens, a detective in the Kalamazoo police department, entered the club quarters of VFW Post 6252, seated himself at a table, and ordered four whisky-base drinks from defendant. Defendant served the specified drinks to Behrens and collected the price, which was 40 cents per drink. Although a member of the VFW, Behrens was not a member of Post 6252 and had not paid dues or other fees into its treasury. Neither VFW Post 6252 nor the defendant held a license for the sale of alcoholic beverages at the time Behrens was served.
Upon this showing, the defendant was bound over by the examining magistrate for further proceedings in the circuit court. The circuit court subsequently discharged defendant, however, and quashed the information on the grounds that 1) defendant's acts do not fall within the purview of the Liquor Control Act and 2) the information was defective. In so ruling, the trial court erred.
The trial court relied on People v. Budzan (1940), 295 Mich. 547, 295 N.W. 259, in holding that defendant's acts are not proscribed by the Liquor Control Act. In that case an organization of workers, which the Supreme Court regarded as an unincorporated association in the absence of evidence to the contrary, bought beer with money from the treasury and dispensed it exclusively to the members at a picnic. Budzan, the association's secretary, was arrested and charged with dispensing liquor without a license. The Court affirmed the lower court's quashing of the information, holding that when the unincorporated association purchased the beer the rights to it vested in the members, and thus there could be no sale or gift to them.
In the present case there is nothing to indicate that VFW Post 6252 is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Maloney v. Sierra
...payment alcoholic beverages by the drink for consumption on the premises. This is not what the court decided in People v. Dayton, 18 Mich.App. 313, 171 N.W.2d 57, 58 (1969): '* * * George Behrens was not a member of the association known as VFW Post 6252, nor had he contributed to the fund ......
-
People v. McGill
...reversal, particularly in the instant case. See People v. Hopper, 274 Mich. 418, 421, 264 N.W. 849 (1936); People v. Dayton, 18 Mich.App. 313, 316, 171 N.W.2d 57 (1969). Furthermore, since defendant failed to object to the error at trial,&nb......
-
People v. Fuzi
...v. Murn, 220 Mich. 555, 190 N.W. 666 (1922)'. People v. Hopper, 274 Mich. 418, 421, 264 N.W. 849, 850 (1936). See People v. Dayton, 18 Mich.App. 313, 316, 171 N.W.2d 57 (1969), and cases cited The failure to allege value is a more serious defect. The value of the property alleged to have be......