People v. Henwood

• Decision Date: 13 March 1900
• Citation: 82 N.W. 70,123 Mich. 317
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HENWOOD.

82 N.W. 70

123 Mich. 317

PEOPLE v. HENWOOD.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 13, 1900

Exceptions from circuit court, Van Buren county; Harsen D. Smith, Judge.

William J. Henwood was convicted of a violation of the law in relation to sales of liquors by druggists, and he brings exceptions before sentence. Affirmed.

James E. Chandler, Pros. Atty., for the People.

T. J Cavanaugh and A. J. Mills, for defendant.

LONG J.

The respondent was prosecuted for an illegal violation of section 25, No. 183, Pub. Acts 1899, which provides: 'Every druggist keeping a drug store in any county adopting prohibition under this act shall make, swear to or cause to be made and sworn to, a true written or printed statement signed and duly sworn to by himself or his clerk, on Monday of each and every week, giving the full name and residence of every person procuring liquor at his drug store during the last week, the kind and quantity of liquor procured, and the date of procuring the same, and the object for which each purchase was made, and on such Mondays shall deliver or mail prepaying the postage thereon, the same to the prosecuting attorney of the county where such store is situated, who shall preserve the same in his office; and all such statements shall be open to inspection to all citizens.' On the trial in the court below no contention was made but that respondent was a druggist prosecuting his business as such in Van Buren county; that at the time alleged in the information he made sales of liquors at his drug store, and did not cause to be made the statements required by such section, or mail or deliver the same to the prosecuting attorney of the county. It was also conceded on the trial that Act No. 207, Pub. Acts 1889, was in force in that county when such sales were made, and that it was in force at the time of the passage of Act No. 183, Pub. Acts 1899. The court below directed a verdict of guilty, and the case is brought here on exceptions before sentence.

Act No 183, Pub. Acts 1899, is an act to amend certain sections of Act No. 207, Pub. Acts 1889, and to add a new section thereto, to stand as section 25, and to repeal section 7 of said act. These amendments to the various sections of the act of 1889 change the act in some respects, and principally the mode of procedure in the submission of the question of prohibition of the liquor traffic to the people of the county. Under the amendments the petition to the board of supervisors must be signed by at least one-third of the qualified electors of the county, instead of one-fourth of the qualified electors, as required by the act of 1889. This petition can be submitted to the board of supervisors only at its next regular or adjourned session. Section 1 of the act of 1889 provided that 'the provisions of this section shall not apply to druggists or registered pharmacists in selling any such liquors under and in compliance with the restrictions and requirements imposed upon them by the general laws of this state.' By the amendment of 1899 that provision is retained, but added thereto are the following words: 'and section twenty-five of this act as amended.' Section 2 of the act of 1889 provided that 'all sales of liquors by druggists or registered pharmacists in such counties [counties where sales of liquors were prohibited by the act] shall be under the restrictions and requirements imposed upon them by the general laws of this state.' The amendment of 1899 adds the words thereto: 'and this act as amended.'

Counsel for respondent contends:

1. That the amendatory act of 1899 repealed Act No. 207, Pub. Acts 1889. We think not. The amendatory act specifically repealed section 7 of the act of 1889, and this fact raises a clear implication that no further repeal was intended. Endlich on Interpretation of Statutes says: 'It has ever been...