People v. Knopf

66 N.W. 951, 109 Mich. 145, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 813
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided April 21, 1896·Published·Cited by 27 cases

Opinion

G-bant, J.

The conviction in this case should be affirmed. It falls directly within the rule of People v. Berry, 107 Mich. 256. The fixtures,- surroundings, and furniture were such as all know are found in the ordinary saloon, and are never the accompaniments of a drug store. The statement in the record is that—

“The people gave evidence tending to prove that the defendants sold intoxicating liquors as a beverage, and kept a saloon and place where intoxicating liquors, namely, lager beer and whisky, were kept for sale as a beverage, as alleged in the information, to such persons as applied for them, and that there was a pool, billiard, and card table in the room, and soft drinks were sold therein.”

The respondents introduced no evidence.

We said in the Berry Case:

“The testimony taken disclosed the situation and character of an ordinary saloon, and there was enough testimony to make a prima facie case that the respondents were not engaged in the business of keeping a drug store, and was sufficient for the jury to find that the respondents were not druggists.”

We held this sufficient aside from the evidence that they had filed no druggists’ bonds.

Conviction affirmed.

The other justices concurred.

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

People v. Knopf, 66 N.W. 951, 109 Mich. 145, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 813 (Mich. 1896).

66 N.W. 951 (People v. Knopf) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Logan v. Day
187 P. 913 (Washington Supreme Court, 1920)
Oklahoma Coal Co. v. Corrigan
1917 OK 443 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
Aphoresmenos v. McIntosh
155 N.W. 715 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1916)
Vrelenich v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co.
154 N.W. 39 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Kangas v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co.
154 N.W. 41 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Lesh v. Tamarack Mining Co.
152 N.W. 1021 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Juntunen v. Quincy Mining Co.
151 N.W. 571 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Mesich v. Tamarack Mining Co.
151 N.W. 564 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Koskell v. Newport Mining Co.
148 N.W. 699 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
Dasher v. Hooking Mining Co.
212 F. 628 (Sixth Circuit, 1914)
Andrews v. Tamarack Mining Co.
146 N.W. 394 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
Kaaro v. Ahmeek Mining Co.
146 N.W. 149 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1914)
Scendar v. Winona Copper Co.
135 N.W. 951 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)
Minkkinen v. Quincy Mining Co.
135 N.W. 449 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1912)
Druck v. Antrim Lime Co.
132 N.W. 492 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
Danula v. Quincy Mining Co.
130 N.W. 604 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
Lewis v. Detroit Vitrified Brick Co.
129 N.W. 726 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1911)
Strepanski v. Grand Rapids Plaster Co.
127 N.W. 706 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1910)
Dunn v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.
126 N.W. 833 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1910)
Holland v. Durham Coal & Coke Co.
63 S.E. 290 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1908)