People v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 26 January 1904
• Citation: 98 N.W. 12,135 Mich. 511
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. ROBINSON.

98 N.W. 12

135 Mich. 511

PEOPLE v. ROBINSON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 26, 1904

Exceptions from Circuit Court, Eaton County; Clement Smith, Judge.

Samuel Robinson was convicted of violating the local option law, and excepts. Affirmed.

Lewis J. Dann, Pros. Atty. (George Huggett, of counsel), for the people.

Garry C. Fox and Frank A. Dean, for defendant.

HOOKER C.J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the law prohibiting the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquor, known as the 'Local Option Law,' which is in force in his county and the case is before us on exceptions before sentence. The warrant contains two counts or charges--one that the defendant unlawfully sold spirituous and intoxicating liquors, viz., three bottles of beer, to one Watson, on an occasion named; the other that on the 30th of August, 1902 and for a period of 50 days next preceding that date, he kept a place where such liquors were sold, not so keeping, etc as a druggist or registered pharmacist, under and in compliance with the restrictions imposed by law. Upon the examination the justice found that both offenses had been committed, and required him to recognize for his appearance at circuit, which he did. The information followed the warrant in form and substance, and upon the denial of a motion to quash the prosecutor was required to elect between the counts, and the defendant was tried upon the charge of keeping, etc. The prosecutor produced testimony tending to show that prior to the time when the local option law became operative the defendant was for a period engaged in the business of keeping a saloon; that immediately upon the taking effect of such law he purchased an alleged stock of drugs for $100, and kept them thereafter in a front room in his place of business, a room about 20 feet deep. Back of this room was another, access to which was had through swinging doors, and in this room he kept liquors and beer. We do not notice any evidence that his alleged drug business was in charge of a registered pharmacist, and it is inferable that he was in no proper sense a druggist. There was evidence of frequent sales of beer, and spirituous liquors, and that on several occasions a number of persons were there at once buying beer. He kept a list of some or all who bought beer and liquor, and there is evidence showing that, while some of his customers were not allowed to drink in the store, he furnished a cup or cups for use in a shed in the rear of the store, said cups to be returned to him, and that there was frequent drinking in the alley in the rear of the store. Lists of sales, sworn to by defendant, and filed with the prosecuting attorney, under the statute, were introduced in evidence, and witnesses were permitted to testify that some of the persons whose names appeared upon said lists were notoriously in the habit of becoming intoxicated, and defendant admitted that he knew some, if not all, of them, and had directed his clerk not to sell liquor to them. Counsel contend that section 25, act No. 183, Pub Acts 1899, requiring druggists in local option counties to file with the prosecuting attorney a sworn report of liquors sold, is in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, because it creates a discrimination between druggists doing business in such counties and others residing in other counties where prohibition has not been adopted. The cases cited by counsel for the people seem to sustain the act. See Bowman v. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22, 25 L.Ed. 989; Chappell Chem. & Fer. Co. v. Sulphur Mines Co., 172 U.S. 473, 19 S.Ct. 268, 43 L.Ed. 520; Magoun v. Ill. T. Sav. Bank, 170 U.S. 293, 18 S.Ct. 594, 42 L.Ed. 1037. To the...