State v. Hickok

• Decision Date: 03 April 1895
• Citation: 62 N.W. 934,90 Wis. 161
• Parties: STATE v. HICKOK.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

90 Wis. 161

62 N.W. 934

STATE

v.HICKOK.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 3, 1895.

Appeal from circuit court, Grant county; George Clementson, Judge.

George W. Hickok was convicted of selling liquor without a license, and appeals. Affirmed.

It appears from the record:

That September 26, 1893, a complaint in writing was made to T. F. Baldwin, a justice of the peace residing and having his office in Lancaster, Grant county, Wis., and sworn to before said justice of the peace, of which the following is a copy, to wit:

“Complaint for Criminal Warrant. State of Wisconsin, Grant County, City of Lancaster--ss.: James Ballantine, A. C. Tubbs, and Grant Ballantine, of lawful age, being severally duly sworn, on his oath, each for himself, makes complaint and says that he has good reason to believe that George Hickok did on the 9th day of September, A. D. 1893, at said county, unlawfully vend, sell, deal, and traffic in, and, for the purpose of evading the laws of this state, give away, certain spirituous, malt, ardent, and intoxicating liquors and drinks, without first having obtained a license therefor according to the laws of this state, contrary to the form, force, and effect of section 1550 of the Revised Statutes of the state of Wisconsin, as amended by section 1 of chapter 322 of the Laws of said state, passed in the year 1882, and section 4 of chapter 296 of the Laws of said state, passed in the year 1885, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Wisconsin,--and prayed that the said George Hickok may be arrested and dealt with according to law. James Ballantine. Grant Ballantine. A. C. Tubbs.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of September, A. D. 1893. T. F. Baldwin, Justice of the Peace.”

That thereupon a warrant of arrest was issued by said justice under said complaint, describing the offense in the exact language of the complaint. That the defendant was thereupon arrested upon said warrant, and brought before said justice. That, after pleading “Not guilty,” he was tried and convicted, and thereupon appealed to the circuit court for Grant county. That before the trial was entered upon in the circuit court the defendant moved to dismiss the action and discharge the defendant, for the reason that the complaint failed to state any town, city, or village in which the alleged offense was committed. That said motion was overruled by the circuit court, and the defendant, March 6, 1894, put in a verified special plea to the same effect, and also that he held a license from the town of Wyalusing to sell intoxicating liquors in the village of Bagley, therein. That the state thereupon demurred to said special plea, and said demurrer was sustained by the circuit court. That a jury was thereupon waived, and the case was tried by the court, and the defendant having been found guilty, before sentence, by consent of the defendant in this cause, the same was certified to this court on the following questions, to wit: “First. Does a complaint charging a sale of intoxicating liquors in Grant county, Wisconsin, on September 9, 1893, without a license (without naming any town, city, or village therein), state an offense with sufficient certainty and precision to apprise the defendant of the offense for which he is to be tried? Second. Can the court pronounce sentence on a judgment of conviction on this complaint? Third. Does the adoption of prohibition in a town, city, or village, under the provisions of chapter 521, Laws 1889 (Local Option Law), suspend, repeal, or abrogate the provisions of the general law regulating the license and sale of intoxicating liquors within said district? Can a prosecution be maintained under either law?”

Richmond & Smith, for plaintiff.

Joseph Cleary, for defendant.

CASSODAY, J. (after stating the facts as above).

The defendant was convicted of having sold intoxicating liquors without a license, in violation of Sanb. & B. Ann. St. § 1550. No question is made but what the justice of the peace residing in Lancaster had power and jurisdiction to hear, try, and determine the offense charged, if it arose anywhere in Grant county. Rev. St. § 4739; State v. Bilder (Wis.) 62 N. W. 415 (officially unreported). The complaint does charge that the offense was committed in Grant county.

It is contended, however, that the complaint is fatally defective because it fails to allege in what particular town, village, or city in that county the offense was committed. The judge of the circuit court, deeming the question “so important or so doubtful as to require the decision of” this court, has certified the question for adjudication under the statute (Rev. St. § 4721). The complaint contains everything which the excise law requires such a complaint to contain. Sanb. & B. Ann. St. § 1551. It also contains everything required in the prescribed...