State v. Davis
This text of 3 N.W.2d 677 (State v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Defendant appeals from a conviction of having violated this ordinance of the city of Minneapolis:
“No person, as hereinafter defined, shall sell, exchange, barter, dispose of or keep for sale any intoxicating liquor, as hereinafter defined, without first having obtained a license therefor as herein provided. * * * The terms ‘sale’ and ‘sell’ shall mean and include ,all barters and all manners or means of furnishing intoxicating liquor or liquors, including the selling, exchange, barter, disposition of or keeping for sale of such intoxicating liquor.”
The testimony abundantly sustains the conviction.
This is “another case where counsel should know that ‘where only fact issues are involved’ nothing is to be. gained by an appeal to this court. Walsh v. Dahl, 195 Minn. 36, 37, 261 N. W. 476. The spirit of controversy should not be permitted to override sound and informed judgment.” State v. Hope, 212 Minn. 319, 320, 3 N. W. (2d) 499.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 N.W.2d 677, 212 Minn. 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davis-minn-1942.