State ex rel. Sansone v. Quinn, 32648

Decision Date27 March 1968
Docket NumberNo. 32648,32648
Citation426 S.W.2d 917
PartiesSTATE of Missouri ex rel. John J. SANSONE, Appellant, v. John J. QUINN, Excise Commissioner of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Rooney, Webbe & Davidson, Ben Messina, Robert O'Hanlon, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.

Gary M. Gaertner, City Counselor, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.

RUDDY, Judge.

This is an appeal by John J. Sansone, owner and operator of a tavern located at 501 Franklin Avenue in the City of St. Louis, from a judgment of the circuit court affirming an order of John J. Quinn, Excise Commissioner of the City of St. Louis, revoking a liquor license issued to appellant.

On March 17, 1966 a citation to suspend or revoke the liquor license of Sansone was served on him. In the citation Licensee was notified that the Excise Commissioner would hold a hearing on the 5th day of April, 1966 in the City Hall, St. Louis, Missouri to inquire into certain violations of the liquor laws contained in the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis. All section references herein are to the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis, unless otherwise indicated.

In the citation it was charged that licensee, while possessing his liquor license, on March 10, 1966 did not at all times operate an orderly place or house as required under Section 372.100, in that he suffered and permitted a violation of Section 373.021 to occur on or about his licensed premises. (Section 373.021 prohibits the solicitation for prostitution on licensed premises). It was further charged that Licensee on March 10, 1966 suffered or permitted disorderly, lewd, or indecent conduct on or about his licensed premises in violation of Section 372.140. (Section 372.140 provides that '* * * No person licensed under the provisions of Chapters 376 or 377, his agent, servant or employee shall suffer or permit any disorderly conduct, or immoral dancing or lewd or indecent conduct on his licensed premises.') It was further charged in said citation that said Licensee, while possessing the aforesaid license, failed to notify the Excise Commissioner of all employees who handled or sold, or assisted in the handling or sale of intoxicating liquor or non-intoxicating beer in any manner in violation of Section 374.063. (Section 374.063 provides as follows: '* * * All persons licensed under the provisions of Chapters 376 or 377 shall notify the Excise Commissioner in writing of all employees who handle or sell, or assist in the handling or sale of intoxicating liquor or non-intoxicating beer in any manner, * * *.')

After pointing out that licensees are at all times responsible for the conduct of their business and premises and are at all times responsible for the conduct and acts of any employee on the premises, which is in violation of the liquor ordinances of the City of St. Louis, said citation contained the following:

'Notice is hereby given that the Excise Commissioner DOES NOT PROVIDE STENOGRAPHERS to suitably record and preserve testimony adduced in hearings.

'The Excise Commissioner at the request and expense of any part or parties shall cause all proceedings and hearings to be suitably recorded and preserved by a competent stenographer.

'Any party desiring to have said proceedings recorded shall make immediate arrangements so as not to delay the date of hearing.'

It appears from Commissioner's Findings of Fact that Licensee failed to appear on April 5, 1966 and on said date the testimony of Detective Gene Killoren was taken; however, it appears that an additional hearing was held on April 12, 1966 in order to afford Licensee an opportunity to cross-examine Detective Killoren and to produce evidence in his own behalf. He appeared on April 12, 1966. At this hearing he stated that he did not desire to obtain a record of the proceedings at his own expense. On April 14, 1966 the Commissioner, in a letter to Licensee, informed him that his full drink intoxicating liquor license issued for his premises at 501 Franklin Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri, had been revoked, effective April 19, 1966. Included in this letter were Findings of Fact and a conclusion of law made by the Commissioner. Thereafter, Licensee filed a petition for review in the circuit court wherein he prayed that the court direct the Commissioner to surrender to the court a '* * * true, perfect and complete copy of the records of the proceedings which took place before him and the decision, ruling and order in this matter, including findings of fact, conclusions of law pertaining thereto, * * *.' In response to the order of the circuit court the Commissioner filed with said court a copy of the citation issued and heretofore summarized and a copy of the aforesaid letter addressed to Licensee on April 14, 1966, containing the Findings of Fact and conclusion of law and order of the Excise Commissioner. Obviously, a record of the testimony adduced at the hearing could not be supplied to the circuit court by the Commissioner. In the Findings of Fact the Commissioner informed Licensee that he took cognizance of the fact that Licensee had failed to provide means of suitably recording testimony adduced at the hearing conducted in the office of the Commissioner on April 12, 1966 and that Licensee had stated that he did not desire to obtain a record of the proceedings at his own expense. The Commissioner then made the following finding:

'Because of the testimony of Detective Gene Killoren (Police Officer of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, assigned to the Liquor, Morality and Gambling Squad) I find that on March 10, 1966 Detective Dennis Hart, in the presence of Detective Killoren, made a telephone call to your tavern at 501 Franklin Avenue and spoke with a girl known as Ruth. Detective Hart identified himself as Frank and made a date with Ruth. Detective Hart, in his conversation with Ruth used terms such as 'get together for a party' and 'lay'. Detective Killoren then went to your licensed premises at 501 Franklin Avenue and identified himself as Frank to a woman who identified herself as Ruth. Subsequently, Ruth served Detective Killoren a bottle of Falstaff beer. Ruth was behind the bar when she served this bottle of Falstaff beer to Detective Killoren. Detective Killoren paid Ruth for this bottle of beer. Detective Killoren then asked Ruth if she were free. Ruth replied, 'Yes, I can get away. I'll talk to the boss.' Ruth then spoke to licensee John J. Sansone. Both Ruth and John J. Sansone were behind the bar at this time. Detective Killoren did not overhear this conversation. Ruth then spoke to another man, identified as Wilson, and told him to bring Detective Killoren upstairs in a few minutes. Ruth then said to Detective Killoren 'He (Wilson) will bring you upstairs in a few moments.' Wilson then took Detective Killoren through the rear door of the tavern and upstairs and into a room. Almost immediately after this, Ruth entered and Wilson left. Ruth then removed her blouse and skirt. Detective Killoren then asked, 'Is the price still right--$15.00 for a straight lay?' Ruth answered, 'Yes.' Ruth then began unfastening her brassiere. At this point, Detective Killoren handed her a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Steamers Service Co., Inc. v. Wright
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 14, 1974
    ...453 (1911) at l.c. 461 and cases there cited; State v. Wipke, 345 Mo. 283, 133 S.W.2d 354 (en banc 1939) at l.c. 359; State v. Quinn, 426 S.W.2d 917, 921(4) (Mo.App.1968); Milgram Food Stores, Inc. v. Ketchum, 384 S.W.2d 510, 514(4) (Mo.1964). The state regulates and controls the sale of in......
  • Labrayere v. Goldberg, 61421.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 15, 1980
    ...Baumann v. Quinn, 337 S.W.2d 84 (Mo. 1960); State ex rel. Perno v. Quinn, 558 S.W.2d 320, 320 (Mo.App. 1977); State ex rel. Sansone v. Quinn, 426 S.W.2d 917, 920 (Mo.App. 1968); and In re Village of Pleasant Valley, 272 S.W.2d 8 (Mo.App. In State ex rel. Sansone v. Quinn, 426 S.W.2d 917 (Mo......
  • Scott v. Department of Public Safety Excise Div., 91-2228C(6).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • June 10, 1992
    ...that under Missouri law the business of selling liquor is a matter of privilege rather than of right. See State ex rel. Sansone v. Quinn, 426 S.W.2d 917 (Mo.Ct.App.1968). Missouri also prohibits ex post facto and retrospective laws. The revision to the liquor licensing requirements cannot p......
  • Peppermint Lounge, Inc. v. Wright, 57066
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 10, 1973
    ...Inc. v. Ketchum, 384 S.W.2d 510, 514(4) (Mo.1964), cert. dismissed, 382 U.S. 801, 86 S.Ct. 10, 15 L.Ed.2d 55 (1965); State v. Quinn, 426 S.W.2d 917, 921(4) (Mo.App.1968). Furthermore, we are considering the exercise by an administrative official of discretion relating to a police regulation......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT