State v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 11 March 1912 |
| Citation | 121 P. 848,67 Wash. 425 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ROBINSON. |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Skagit County; Geo. A. Joiner Judge.
Demurrer to information against H. A. Robinson was sustained, and the State appeals. Reversed.
Augustus Brawley, for the State.
M. P Hurd, for respondent.
The state prosecutes this appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the information. The charging part of the information is as follows: 'That in Skagit county, state of Washington, and on or about the 26th day of October, A. D 1911, the said defendant, H. A. Robinson, under and by virtue of a wholesale liquor license issued by the United States government, did unlawfully sell, at the place of business for which said wholesale license was issued, one gallon of intoxicating liquor, to wit, whisky, to one Charles Colvin, the said defendant H. A. Robinson delivering the said intoxicating liquor at the residence of said Charles Colvin such place of sale and such place of delivery being within the corporate limits of the city of Mt. Vernon, Skagit county, Wash., a city of the third class, and the said city of Mt. Vernon being a unit wherein the sale of intoxicating liquor was then and there prohibited, and such sale of intoxicating liquor then and there being prohibited and unlawful. * * *' The demurrer was sustained upon the ground that the information does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime or misdemeanor. The appeal presents the question of the interpretation of the local option statute as applied to a wholesale liquor dealer having a place of business within a dry unit. Laws 1909, p. 153. A correct understanding of the case requires a somewhat extended reference to the statute. The act is entitled: 'An act to provide for the submission to the qualified electors of the question whether the sale of intoxicating liquors shall be licensed or prohibited, providing for the enforcement of the result of the elections hereunder, defining offenses hereunder, and providing penalties therefor.'
The applicable parts of the statute are as follows:
Section 5 provides that there shall be printed on the ballot the words, 'shall the sale of intoxicating liquor be licensed within the' described unit; that the ballot shall contain the words, 'For license' and 'Against license'; that those favoring the licensing of the sale of intoxicating liquor within the unit shall indicate it by a cross within the square following the words, 'For license,' and those desiring to vote against the licensing of the sale of intoxicating liquor within the unit shall make a like mark within the square following the words, 'Against license.'
Section 6, after providing for canvassing the election returns and the certification, publication, and recording of the result of the election, provides: 'and no intoxicating liquor, save as hereinafter provided, shall be sold within that unit until permission so to do be granted at an election held for that purpose under the provisions of this act.'
Section 9 provides: 'Whenever a majority of the qualified electors voting upon said question in any unit hereinbefore created, at an election held for that purpose, shall have failed to vote 'for license' and it shall thereby have been decided by said vote that intoxicating liquor shall not thereafter be sold within that unit * * * it shall not be lawful to sell, give away or in any manner dispose of intoxicating liquor in any quantity whatever, within the limits of the unit, * * *' saving the right of a person in his private dwelling or private apartments to give liquor to his guests.
Section 10 provides that within 10 days after the result of the election has become operative every retail liquor dealer, excepting druggists, shall remove all intoxicating liquors from his place of business, and that a failure to do so shall be prima facie evidence that such liquor is kept therein for sale or other disposition in violation of the act.
Section 11 provides: 'Whoever shall, either as principal, agent, clerk or servant, directly or indirectly, sell, barter, exchange, give away or otherwise dispose of any intoxicating liquor in any quantity whatever, within the limits of a unit which has, by its vote, decided against the licensing of the sale of intoxicating liquor, or who shall keep or have in his possession any intoxicating liquor with intent to sell, give away or otherwise dispose of such liquor in violation of the provisions hereof,' shall, upon conviction, be fined not less than $20 nor more than $200, or imprisoned in the county jail for not less than 10 days nor more than 30 days, or be punished by both such fine and imprisonment. The section further provides that, upon a second conviction, the penalty shall be a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500, and imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 10 days nor more than 90 days, and that, upon a third and each subsequent conviction, the penalty shall be a fine of not less than $200 nor more than $1,000, and imprisonment in the county jail not less than 3 months nor more than a year.
Section 12 defines what constitutes an unlawful sale, and is as follows: 'The giving away, delivering or handling of any intoxicating liquor by any storekeeper at any place of business, or the taking or soliciting of orders, or the making of agreements for the sale or delivery, or for the giving away, of any intoxicating liquor within the limits of a unit which shall have voted against licensing the sale of intoxicating liquor therein, or any other device to evade the provisions hereof, shall be deemed an unlawful sale. * * *'
Section 16 provides: 'It shall be unlawful for any physician to issue a prescription for intoxicating liquor except in writing or in any case unless such physician has good reason to believe that the person for whom it is issued is actually sick and the liquor is required as medicine.'
Section 17 provides: 'Nothing in this act shall be construed to forbid or prevent the sale within any unit which has voted against the sale of intoxicating liquor therein, by a druggist or pharmacist, of liquor upon prescription for medical purposes, or for sacramental purposes, or of alcohol for medicinal, mechanical or chemical purposes only. * * *' It further provides that the druggist shall keep a true and exact record of each sale, together with the name, residence, and street address of the purchaser, the date of the sale, the kind, quantity, and price of the liquor, the purpose for which it is sold, and, if the sale is for medical purposes, the name of the physician issuing the prescription therefor; that the record shall be signed by the purchaser; that the prescription shall be marked 'Canceled,' and not refilled, and that the record shall be open to inspection by the prosecuting attorney of the county and the judge or justice of the peace having criminal jurisdiction therein or any sheriff, constable, marshal, or other police officer within the county.
It is further provided that a violation of the provisions of the section shall be a misdemeanor.
Section 18 provides: 'It shall be unlawful for any person, or public or private carrier, to accept or receive for shipment transportation or delivery to any person or place within any unit in which the sale of intoxicating liquor is forbidden under the provisions of this act, or to carry, bring into or transfer to any other person,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bayha v. Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Grays Harbor County
...not extend to or qualify other sections, unless the legislative intent that it shall so operate is clearly disclosed.' See State v. Robinson, 67 Wash. 425, 121 P. 848; also State v. Fabbri, 98 Wash. 207, 167 P. 133, L.R.A.1918A, 416; 2 Lewis' Sutherland Statutory Construction (2d ed.) 673, ......
-
STATE CHARTERED BANKS IN WASH. v. Peoples Nat. Bank of Wash.
...63 Wash.2d 913, 390 P.2d 2 (1964); Pacific Northwest Alloys, Inc. v. State, 49 Wash.2d 702, 306 P.2d 197 (1957); State v. Robinson, 67 Wash. 425, 121 P. 848 (1912). Looking at the statutes in question, their meaning appears to be quite clear— if a distinct facility is used to collect deposi......
-
City of Seattle v. Rothweiler
... ... and not the principal part of the statute which must give ... way. State ex rel. Chamberlin v. Daniel, 17 Wash ... 111, 49 P. 243; Tautakawa v. Kummamoto, 53 Wash ... 231, 101 P. 869, 102 P. 766; State v ... ...
-
F.T. Crowe & Co. v. Adkinson Const. Co.
... ... presentation of any evidence, on the ground that the ... complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a ... cause of action, and, at the close of the respondent's ... evidence, they asked for a decree in ... ...