State v. Nolan

• Decision Date: 13 May 1887
• Citation: 37 Minn. 16
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE OF MINNESOTA <I>vs.</I> WILLIAM NOLAN.

37 Minn. 16

STATE OF MINNESOTA vs. WILLIAM NOLAN.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 13, 1887.

The defendant was convicted in the district court for Cottonwood county on an indictment for selling intoxicating liquors without a license. Upon the trial before Perkins, J., it appeared that the sale

was made in the village of Windom. The action was certified to this court under Gen. St. 1878, c. 117, § 11.

J. S. Ingalls, for the State.

Geo. W. Wilson, for defendant.

DICKINSON, J.

The question is here presented whether the effect of the special law incorporating the village of Windom (Sp. Laws 1875, c. 24) was to abrogate, as respects that locality, the general law of the state relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, so that one selling without license was not subject to indictment and punishment under the general law. The provisions to be considered are found in section 21, which gives the village council authority by ordinance "* * * to restrain, or license and regulate, the vending, dealing in, or disposing of, and all persons vending, dealing, or disposing of, spirituous, vinous, fermented, or malt liquors." In a proviso it is further enacted that the council "may at any time revoke any license granted under this act for any violation of the general laws of this state, this act, or any by-law, rule, or ordinance of said village: * * * provided, further, that said common council shall have exclusive jurisdiction and control of all the matters in this subdivision specified, to the entire exclusion of any control, or right to regulate or restrain, in said matters, by any board, officer, person, or municipality of this county." Further provision is made enabling the voters of the village to determine at the annual elections whether the village council shall be authorized to grant licenses.

The effect of this enactment was to confer upon the village council the power to restrain the sale of intoxicating liquors, or to license and regulate the business, to the exclusion of the board of county commissioners and of all other local authorities, none of whom have power to license, control, or regulate it. But that does not necessarily indicate a purpose on the part of the legislature that the state shall relinquish all control over the subject, abrogating the general law, as respects this locality, and leaving the business to be carried on without any license, regulation, or restraint, unless the village authorities shall elect to impose some...