State v. Peterson

• Decision Date: 30 January 1888
• Citation: 38 Minn. 143,36 N.W. 443
• Parties: STATE v PETERSON ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

38 Minn. 143

36 N.W. 443

STATEvPETERSON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 30, 1888.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A bill which is duly enrolled, authenticated, and approved is presumed to have been passed by the legislature in conformity with the requirements of the constitution, unless the contrary be made affirmatively to appear; and the proof furnished by the journals, in matters of procedure, must be clear, in order to overcome this presumption. It is not overthrown by the failure of the journals to show any fact which is not specially required by the constitution to be entered therein. Following State v. Hastings, 24 Minn. 78.

Where the record, as appearing upon the journal of the house, showed that an act “was read the first time, and, on motion, the bill was read the second time, and placed on file for third reading,” the vote upon which the bill was ordered to a second reading not appearing, it will be presumed, in support of the action of the house, that the motion was adopted, and rule dispensed with, by the requisite two-thirds vote.

The provisions of chapter 5, 6, and 81, Laws 1887, in relation to the sale of intoxicating liquors, are made specially applicable to cities, and supersede all inconsistent charter provisions as to the terms and conditions upon which licenses may be issued.

These provisions are complete in themselves, and do not necessarily require any additional local legislation by city councils to render them operative and effectual.

Under the charter of the city of Minneapolis, the city council may act upon applications, and cause licenses to be issued, under the provisions of the General Laws referred to; and the comptroller is a proper officer to issue the same, upon the direction of the council. The records of his office touching the issuance of licenses are competent evidence of all matters shown thereby.

Upon the conviction of a party for the violation of the provisions of section 1, c. 81, Laws 1887, the court sentenced him to imprisonment in the county jail for 30 days, and to pay a fine of $75 and costs, “and to stand committed to the county jail until such fine and costs were paid, not exceeding 30 days in addition to the 30 days' imprisonment.” Held a legal and valid judgment. The commitment in default of the payment of the sum named is not a part of the penalty imposed for the offense, but is to compel obedience to the order of the court directing the payment of a fine.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; YOUNG, Judge.

Indictment against Fred Peterson and John Pierson for keeping open on the Sabbath day a place where the sale of intoxicating liquors was licensed. Defendants were convicted, and appeal.

Moses E Clapp, Atty. Gen., and Frank F. Davis, Co. Atty., for the State.

Thomas Canty, for appellants.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The defendants were tried upon the following indictment, viz.: “Fred Peterson and John Pierson are accused by the grand jury of the county of Hennepin, in the state of Minnesota, by this indictment, of the crime of keeping open on the Sabbath day a place where the sale of intoxicating liquors was licensed, committed as follows: The said Fred Peterson and John Pierson did on the twenty-fourth day of July, 1887, at the city of Minneapolis, in said Hennepin county, willfully, unlawfully, and wrongfully keep open that certain place where the sale of intoxicating liquors was then and there licensed, said place being then and there known, designated, and described as 323 on 20th Ave. North, in said city of Minneapolis, being then and there the Sabbath day; contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Minnesota. ***”

1. The indictment is sufficient. It thereby appears that the place where the alleged offense was committed was within the city of Minneapolis, in Hennepin county. It was established on the trial that the defendants were keeping a saloon at the place designated during the month of July, 1887, and there was evidence reasonably tending to prove that it was kept open by them on the twenty-fourth day of that month, being the Sabbath day.

2. The prosecution is brought under the provisions of section 1, c. 81, Gen. Laws 1887, which among other things provides as follows: “All places where the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be licensed, under the provisions of any law or ordinance, shall be closed during all hours of every Sabbath day, and of every general or special election day; and any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof by any court having jurisdiction, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $30 nor more than $100, and costs of prosecution, and by imprisonment in the county jail not less than ten nor more than thirty days.” The validity of this act is attacked by the defendants, on the ground that it was not constitutionally passed, in that it appears to have been read twice on the same day in the house of representatives without suspending the rules, as required by article 4, § 20, Const., which provides as follows: “Sec. 20. Every bill shall be read on three different days in each separate house, unless, in case of urgency, two-thirds of the house where such bill is depending shall deem it expedient to dispense with this rule; and no bill shall be passed by either house until it shall have been previously read twice at length.” The defendants contend that this rule was disregarded by the house, in violation of the plain provisions of this section, and rely upon the following entry in the House Journal: “S. F. 454. A bill for ‘An act to amend ch. 16, Gen. St. 1878; relating to intoxicating liquors', was read the first time, and on motion of Mr. Potter the bill was read the second time, and placed on file for third reading.” We do not think that the inferences to be drawn from this record support the contention of the defendants. It is true the constitution (article 4, § 5) directs that the houses shall “keep journals of their proceedings;” but in respect to such journals this court held, in State v. Hastings, 24 Minn. 82, that, except in cases where the constitution specifically requires certain facts to be entered, this clause leaves the question of how full and minute the journals shall be in the uncontrolled discretion of the legislature, so that the failure of the journals to show by an entry that any particular thing was done furnishes no evidence or presumption whether it was done or not, save in cases where an entry is specially directed by the constitution. It is not questioned, in this instance, that the bill was duly enrolled, authenticated, and approved. The act is therefore presumed to have been passed in conformity with the requirements of the constitution, unless the contrary be made affirmatively to appear. And the proof furnished by the journals, in matters of procedure, as the reading of bills, etc., must be clear and convincing, in order to overcome this presumption. Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St. 475;Williams v. State, 6 Lea, 549;Supervisors v. People, 25 Ill. 181;Larrison v. Railroad Co., 77 Ill. 11; Worthen v. Badgett, 32 Ark. 496. We see no force in the suggestion of counsel that, from the peculiar form of the record in this instance, there is necessarily implied a fatal irregularity in the proceeding; that is to say, that the house ordered the second reading of the bill in question in disregard of the constitutional direction above referred to. On the contrary, it will be...