Hollenbaugh v. State ex rel. Town of Princeton

Indiana Supreme Court

Hollenbaugh v. State ex rel. Town of Princeton

11 Ind. 556

Indiana Supreme Court·Decided February 16, 1859·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This prosecution was instituted under an ordinance declaring the sale of intoxicating liquors, beer, &c., to be a nuisance, forbidding such sale, and prescribing [557]*557punishment therefor. The defendant was fined the amount r fixed in the ordinance.

S. Judah, for the appellant.

The validity of the ordinance is questioned.

Following the case of Beebe v. The State, 6 Ind. R. 501, we think this question has been already settled.

The judgment is reversed. Cause remanded, &c.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This prosecution was instituted under an ordinance declaring the sale of intoxicating liquors, beer, &c., to be a nuisance, forbidding such sale, and prescribing [557]*557punishment therefor. The defendant was fined the amount r fixed in the ordinance.

S. Judah, for the appellant.

The validity of the ordinance is questioned.

Following the case of Beebe v. The State, 6 Ind. R. 501, we think this question has been already settled.

The judgment is reversed. Cause remanded, &c.

Hollenbaugh v. State ex rel. Town of Princeton, 11 Ind. 556 (Ind. 1859).

Pincite

11 Ind. 556 (Hollenbaugh v. State ex rel. Town of Princeton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related