People v. Rand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rand

114 A.D. 826, 100 N.Y.S. 174, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2203

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 24, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D. 826 (People v. Rand) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Rand, 114 A.D. 826, 100 N.Y.S. 174, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Hirschberg, P. J.:

The defendant has been convicted in this case as the holder of a liquor tax certificate for admitting to the room where- liquors were [827]*827sold persons other than members of 1ns family, on Sunday. (See Liquor Tax Law [Laws of 1896, chap. 112], § '31, subds. a, g, as amd. by Laws of 1903, chap. 486.) The evidence is amply sufficient to justify his conviction, but his counsel appears to think that because he did not personally escort the customer into the barroom he did not admit him under the law. This contention, of course, cannot prevail. The place was open on Sunday. The defendant and the barkeeper both were there. The customer came in and bought the lager beer, and the defendant consequently, in the legal as well as in the ordinary sense, admitted him to the room.

I recommend that the judgment of conviction be affirmed.

Hookes, Gaynob, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

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

Hirschberg, P. J.:

The defendant has been convicted in this case as the holder of a liquor tax certificate for admitting to the room where- liquors were [827]*827sold persons other than members of 1ns family, on Sunday. (See Liquor Tax Law [Laws of 1896, chap. 112], § '31, subds. a, g, as amd. by Laws of 1903, chap. 486.) The evidence is amply sufficient to justify his conviction, but his counsel appears to think that because he did not personally escort the customer into the barroom he did not admit him under the law. This contention, of course, cannot prevail. The place was open on Sunday. The defendant and the barkeeper both were there. The customer came in and bought the lager beer, and the defendant consequently, in the legal as well as in the ordinary sense, admitted him to the room.

I recommend that the judgment of conviction be affirmed.

Hookes, Gaynob, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D. 826, 100 N.Y.S. 174, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rand-nyappdiv-1906.