People v. Richmond
| Decision Date | 03 February 1886 |
| Citation | 26 N.W. 770,59 Mich. 570 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. RICHMOND. |
Exception from Van Buren.
The Attorney General, for the People.
Lester A. Tabor, for defendant.
Defendant was convicted of keeping his saloon open between 9 and 10 o'clock at night, on the third of February, 1885. He lived in the village of Hartford. The complaint followed the statute, and made no reference to the existence or non-existence of any village ordinance. The principal contest arose concerning the bearing of the proviso in section 2275 of Howell's Statutes, "that in all cities and incorporated villages the common council may, by ordinance allow the saloons, and other places where said liquors shall be sold, to remain open not later than 10 o'clock on any week-day night." Defendant claimed that the complaint was bad for not negativing the existence of any such ordinance in Hartford. He further claimed that the proviso was bad as giving cities and villages the power to dispense with general laws, and that its invalidity affected the whole law. He offered to show further that application was made to several members of the Hartford council for such a permission, and that they promised to lay it before the council and inform him, and that he was thereafter informed by the village marshal that the board had authorized him to keep open an hour longer.
It is hardly necessary to say that the invalidity of a proviso does not destroy a law, unless going to show that the law would not have been passed without it. No such idea is suggested by this proviso; and inasmuch as this proviso is special, and calls for specific municipal action to authorize a dispensation, we do not think it necessary in the complaint to negative what would be a substantive matter of defense, in the nature of a license by local authority and not under general regulation. As defendant, like all other citizens, is bound to inform himself of the conditions on which villages can act, he could not rely on any individual permission, even if it had been granted. Such permission could only be by ordinance, applicable to all persons keeping saloons.
Complaint is also made that the court had no right to direct the jury to find a verdict of guilty without argument to the jury. The prosecution had shown by testimony not disputed that defendant's saloon was open after 9 o'clock. Defendant himself testified that before the day in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Deneweth, Docket No. 3085
...juries that they must bring in a guilty verdict. It appears that the earliest case approving such an instruction (People v. Richmond (1886), 59 Mich. 570, 26 N.W. 770) involved a violation of the liquor law. This was an offense Malum prohibitum and it was not necessary to prove criminal int......
-
People v. Heikkala
...180 Mich. 664, 147 N. W. 585;People v. Lyng, 74 Mich. 579, 42 N. W. 139;People v. Ackerman, 80 Mich. 588, 45 N. W. 367;People v. Richmond, 59 Mich. 570, 26 N. W. 770;People v. Elmer, 109 Mich. 493, 67 N. W. 550;People v. Kirsch, 67 Mich. 539, 35 N. W. 157;People v. Gardner, 143 Mich. 104, 1......
-
Spence v. Fenchler
...was not so dependent upon it that the ordinance incorporating defendant's lands within the city should be held void." People v. Richmond, 59 Mich. 570, 26 N. W. 770, arose under a statute which contained the "That in all cities and incorporated villages the common council may, by ordinance,......
-
People v. Warren
...v. Burpee, 65 Vt. 1, 25 Atl. 964;Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 173;People v. Mortimer, 48 Mich. 38, 11 N. W. 776;People v. Richmond, 59 Mich. 570, 26 N. W. 770;People v. Kirsch, 67 Mich. 539, 35 N. W. 157;People v. Neumann, 85 Mich. 98, 48 N. W. 290;People v. Repke, 103 Mich. 459, 61 N. W. 8......