People v. Koob

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Koob

67 N.W. 320, 109 Mich. 358, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 860

DecidedMay 19, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 67 N.W. 320 (People v. Koob) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Koob, 67 N.W. 320, 109 Mich. 358, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 860 (Mich. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Montgomery, J.

The respondent was convicted of keeping his saloon open on Sunday. The facts were agreed upon and admitted in open court, and were that the respondent kept a restaurant and' saloon, connected with double doors; the eating room being in the front portion of the building, and the bar, where liquors were stored, in the rear room. Liquors were, however, served indiscriminately in either room on week days. On the front door of the front room were signs, “Lager Beer,” “Wines and Liquors.” On the Sunday in question the front door was kept open, and meals were served therein. The sole question is whether the front room was part of the saloon, within the meaning of the statute. We think the question clearly ruled by People v. Cox, 70 Mich. 247; People v. Hughes, 97 Mich. 543.

Conviction affirmed.

Grant, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred. Long, C. J., did not sit.

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

Montgomery, J.

The respondent was convicted of keeping his saloon open on Sunday. The facts were agreed upon and admitted in open court, and were that the respondent kept a restaurant and' saloon, connected with double doors; the eating room being in the front portion of the building, and the bar, where liquors were stored, in the rear room. Liquors were, however, served indiscriminately in either room on week days. On the front door of the front room were signs, “Lager Beer,” “Wines and Liquors.” On the Sunday in question the front door was kept open, and meals were served therein. The sole question is whether the front room was part of the saloon, within the meaning of the statute. We think the question clearly ruled by People v. Cox, 70 Mich. 247; People v. Hughes, 97 Mich. 543.

Conviction affirmed.

Grant, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred. Long, C. J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 N.W. 320, 109 Mich. 358, 1896 Mich. LEXIS 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-koob-mich-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack