Ryan v. State
| Decision Date | 19 June 1918 |
| Parties | RYAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to La Fayette County Court; J. B. Simpson, Judge.
Thomas S. Ryan was convicted of illegally selling liquor in dry territory, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Thomas S. Ryan was convicted in the county court of La Fayette county for illegally selling liquor in dry territory, contrary to the provisions of section 1565c, of the Statutes. The case is brought here for review upon a writ of error sued out by said Ryan, hereinafter called the defendant.Fiedler & Fiedler, of Mineral Point (T. M. Priestley, of Mineral Point, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Spencer Haven, Atty. Gen., and J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
[1][2] The first contention of the plaintiff in error is that the state failed to prove that the unlawful sale of liquor for which he was convicted occurred in La Fayette county. The evidence shows that the sale took place in the village of Blanchardville, but there was no proof that the village of Blanchardville was located in La Fayette county. Courts of this jurisdiction take judicial notice of the location of the various political subdivisions of the state. In Huey v. Van Wie, 23 Wis. 613, judicial notice was taken of the fact that the village of Madison was in Dane county. In Davis v. State, 134 Wis. 632, 115 N. W. 150, this court took judicial notice that the city of Waukesha was within the territorial boundaries of the municipal court for the Eastern district of Waukesha county. It necessarily follows that, when the exact boundaries of the various political subdivisions of the state come in question, the court must take judicial notice of such public records of the state as define such boundaries.
An inspection of the records relating to the incorporation of the village of Blanchardville on file in the office of the circuit court of La Fayette county reveals the fact that, as originally incorporated, the entire area included within said village is in La Fayette county. We also take judicial notice of the fact that the boundaries of said village have not been changed in the manner provided by statute since the original incorporationthereof. It appearing, therefore, that no part of village of Blanchardville is located outside of La Fayette county, and the proof being undisputed that the sale of liquor took place in the village of Blanchardville, we must hold that the venue was competently proved.
[3] Upon the argument, attorneys for plaintiff in error exhibited to the court a county map or atlas, upon which a small platted area, seeming, according to such map, to constitute a portion of the village of Blanchardville, extended into Iowa county. The platting of lands lying outside the limits of, but adjacent to, incorporated villages and cities, by enterprising property owners, is not infrequent, and, while the presentation of the map was sufficient to raise a question as to the exact boundaries of the village of Blanchardville, the question thus raised must be determined by the public records defining the exact boundary lines of said village.
[4] In this connection it is proper to call attention to the provisions of section 4618 of the Statutes, which provides that:
“Offenses committed on the boundary lines of two counties or within one hundred rods of the dividing line between them may be alleged in the indictment or information to have been committed in either of them, and may be prosecuted and punished in either county.”
By virtue of this provision of the Statutes, unless the boundaries of the village of Blanchardville extended more than 100 rods into Iowa county, the proof was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the county court of La Fayette county.
[5] The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jessner v. State
...of this court. Benedict v. State, 14 Wis. *424;Ely v. Tesch, 17 Wis. *202;Lela v. Domaske, 48 Wis. 625, 4 N. W. 794;Ryan v. State, 168 Wis. 14, 168 N. W. 566. However, it is believed that these principles are recent developments in accordance with modern views of justice, and in response to......
-
Kaseris v. Justice Court of Pocatello Precinct
... ... when he has been tried and convicted by a jury which did not ... measure up to the constitutional and statutory requirements ... ( State v. Nadlman, 118 P.2d 62 Ida.) ... The ... right of trial by jury secures that right as it existed under ... the common law. ( ... held that either county has jurisdiction. ( State v ... Lehman, 130 Ore. 132, 279 P. 283; Ryan v. State, ... (Wis.) 168 Wis. 14, 168 N.W. 566; People v ... Donaldson, (Mich.) 243 Mich. 104, 219 N.W. 602; ... Bayliss v. People, 46 Mich ... ...
- Stoeber v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co.
-
State v. Christopherson
...not reveal that Wausau is in Marathon county it must fail because the court can take judicial notice of that fact. In Ryan v. State (1918), 168 Wis. 14, 15, 168 N.W. 566, it is 'Courts of this jurisdiction take judicial notice of the location of the various political subdivisions of the sta......