State v. Hanson

• Decision Date: 23 May 1911
• Citation: 137 S.W. 968,234 Mo. 583
• Parties: THE STATE v. ROBERT HANSON, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

137 S.W. 968

234 Mo. 583

THE STATE v. ROBERT HANSON, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

May 23, 1911

Appeal from Ray Circuit Court. -- Hon. F. H. Trimble, Judge.

Affirmed.

Elliott W. Major, Attorney-General, and Charles G. Revelle, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

(1) Appellant challenged the validity of the Local Option Law in so far as it prohibits traffic in beverages which contain alcohol, or are fermented, but which are not, in point of fact, intoxicating. Since the case now under review was tried, this court has passed directly upon the identical questions presented by this record, and in an able and exhaustive opinion, covering every phase thereof, has ruled each contention adversely to this appellant. State v Martin, 230 Mo. 1. (2) The validity of the Local Option Law in all other respects has been finally and conclusively settled. State ex rel. v. Pond, 93 Mo. 606; Ex parte Swan, 96 Mo. 44; State v. Watts, 111 Mo. 553; State v. Dugan, 110 Mo. 138; State v Handler, 178 Mo. 38; State v. Harp, 210 Mo 254; State v. Campbell, 214 Mo. 362. (3) The agreed statement of facts, as well as other evidence introduced, showing that the hard cider which appellant sold was a fermented beverage containing at least five per cent of alcohol, completely established appellant's guilt. State v. Martin, 230 Mo. 1.

BROWN, J. Kennish, P. J., and Ferriss, J., concur.

OPINION

BROWN, J.

Defendant was fined $ 300 in the circuit court of Ray county for selling intoxicating liquor in the city of Richmond in said county, in violation of the Local Option Law; and appeals to this court.

The indictment charges defendant with selling "intoxicating liquor, to-wit, one pint of hard cider." The documentary evidence introduced proves that the Local Option Law had been duly adopted in said city of Richmond prior to the alleged sale; while the sale itself is proven by an agreed statement of facts, which recites that defendant sold hard, fermented cider, containing as much as five per cent of alcohol; but there is no evidence that the defendant placed any alcohol or other intoxicant in the cider. He bought and sold it in his usual course of trade as the keeper of a restaurant.

Defendant has not favored us with a brief, but from his motion for a new trial we ascertain that he seeks a reversal of the judgment against him on the following grounds:

1. That the Local Option Law is in conflict with section 28 of article 4 of the Constitution of Missouri in so far as it attempts to prohibit the sale of beverages which do not contain a sufficient percentage of alcohol to intoxicate those who may drink same; because the title of the bill under which said law was enacted only refers to the sale of "intoxicating liquor."

2. That if said Local Option Law be construed so as to embrace non-intoxicating beverages, then it violates the said 28th section of article 4 of the Constitution, because the bill creating said law contains more than one subject, to-wit, the sale of intoxicating beverages and also the sale of beverages which do not intoxicate.

OPINION.

I. Since the defendant was convicted in the court below, this court in a well considered opinion has held that the title of the bill creating the Local Option Law is in harmony with section 28 of article 4 of the Constitution, in so far as that section requires the subject of every law to be clearly expressed in the title of the bill by which it enacted. [State v. Martin, 230 Mo. 1, 129 S.W. 931.] Upon the authority of that case, we must overrule defendant's first assault on the judgment of the trial court.

II. The further contention of defendant that the Local Option Law is in conflict with said section 28 of article 4 of our organic law, because the bill creating the said law contains more than one subject, to-wit, the sale of intoxicating beverages, and also the sale of beverages which do not intoxicate, is equally unsound.

If the words "intoxicating liquor," as used in the title of the Local Option Law, should be so construed as to apply only to beverages which will intoxicate, then this assault on that law would be well founded; but we do not believe...