State v. Lindquist

• Decision Date: 01 November 1899
• Docket Number: 11,771 - (24)
• Citation: 80 N.W. 701,77 Minn. 540
• Parties: STATE v. JOHN LINDQUIST
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

80 N.W. 701

77 Minn. 540

STATE v. JOHN LINDQUIST

Nos. 11,771 - (24)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

November 1, 1899

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the municipal court of Minneapolis, whereby he was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor without a license, and sentenced to be imprisoned in the city workhouse for the term of 90 days. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Intoxicating Liquor -- Sale in Minneapolis.

The charter provisions of the city of Minneapolis, authorizing its city council to license and regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors within its limits, and the ordinance enacted pursuant to such authority, were not repealed by Laws 1887, c. 6, regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors.

David B. Johnson and John J. McHale, for appellant.

Frank Healy and H. E. Dickinson, for respondent.

OPINION

START C.J.

The defendant was convicted, on his plea of guilty, in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis, of the offense of selling spirituous liquor without license contrary to the ordinance of the city. Thereupon it was adjudged that he be imprisoned in the workhouse of the city for the term of 90 days. He appealed from the judgment.

The assignments of error present but a single question. It is this: Did the municipal court have jurisdiction to pronounce the judgment? The answer to this question depends on whether the charter and ordinance of the city of Minneapolis relating to the liquor traffic in the city were repealed by Laws 1887, c. 6, known as the "High-License Law." The contention of the defendant is that they were. The charter provisions are to the effect following: The city council shall have full power and authority to make, ordain, publish, enforce, alter, amend, or repeal ordinances of the city for the suppression of vice and intemperance; and for these purposes the said city council shall have authority, by such ordinances, first, to license * * * all persons vending, dealing in, or disposing of spirituous, vinous, fermented, or malt liquors; * * * and any person who shall vend, deal in, or dispose of spirituous, vinous, fermented, or malt liquors, within the present or future limits of said city, except when licensed by the city council of said city, shall be subject to all the pains and penalties provided by G.S. 1878, c. 16 (G.S. 1894, c. 16), for selling spirituous, vinous, fermented, or malt liquors without a license, as well as to any punishment provided by any ordinance by the city council of the city of Minneapolis, as in this charter provided. These provisions were in force when Laws 1887, c. 6, was enacted, sections 5 and 8 of which are in these words:

"Sec. 5. The provisions of this act shall apply to all cities and villages in this state incorporated under general or special law, and to every other municipal corporation or quasi corporation in this state, whether or not said municipal corporations have the right by general or special charter or general or special laws to grant licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors or to regulate said sale through or by any council or officer of the same anything in the charter of any municipal corporation in this state to the contrary notwithstanding."

"Sec. 8. All acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed."

Now the claim of the defendant is briefly this Before the passage of Laws 1887, c. 6, the punishment for selling intoxicating liquors prescribed by G.S. 1878, c. 16, § 4, was by a fine not exceeding $100, or by imprisonment for not more than 60 days; and for selling contrary to the ordinance of the city of Minneapolis (for a violation of which the defendant was convicted) the punishment was a fine of not more than $100, or by imprisonment not exceeding 90 days. But by Laws 1887, c. 6, § 4 ...