People v. Rall

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Rall

98 N.W. 3, 135 Mich. 510, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 955

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 26, 1904

DocketDocket No. 227

StatusPublished

This text of 98 N.W. 3 (People v. Rall) 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. Rall, 98 N.W. 3, 135 Mich. 510, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 955 (Mich. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

• Hooker, J.

The defendant was a hotel keeper, and was convicted of violating the provisions of the local option statute. The only question in the case is the suffici®cy of the warrant and information; it being claimed that they are invalid because they do not show that the [511]*511acts of the defendant were not within the exceptions contained in section 15 of the statute (Act No. 183, Pub. Acts 1899), as to selling for sacramental purposes, and rendering it inapplicable to druggists or registered pharmacists in selling under and in compliance with law.

The case needs no protracted discussion. It is ruled by Smalley v. Ashland Brown-Stone Co., 114 Mich. 109 (72 N. W. 29); People v. Allen, 122 Mich. 123 (80 N. W. 991).

The conviction is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

• Hooker, J.

The defendant was a hotel keeper, and was convicted of violating the provisions of the local option statute. The only question in the case is the suffici®cy of the warrant and information; it being claimed that they are invalid because they do not show that the [511]*511acts of the defendant were not within the exceptions contained in section 15 of the statute (Act No. 183, Pub. Acts 1899), as to selling for sacramental purposes, and rendering it inapplicable to druggists or registered pharmacists in selling under and in compliance with law.

The case needs no protracted discussion. It is ruled by Smalley v. Ashland Brown-Stone Co., 114 Mich. 109 (72 N. W. 29); People v. Allen, 122 Mich. 123 (80 N. W. 991).

The conviction is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 N.W. 3, 135 Mich. 510, 1904 Mich. LEXIS 955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rall-mich-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack