State v. Jamison

23 Mo. 330
Supreme Court of Missouri·Decided March 15, 1856·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

LEONARD, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court.

There is a sufficient bill of exceptions here, although very informally drawn. The constitutionality of the act of 1st March, 1851, upon which the case was determined in the court below, is not involved in the record, and of course we express no opinion upon it. The indictment is sufficient, and it is no defence that the County Court improperly refused the defendant a license when he applied for it. It is the granted license that justifies a party in carrying on the business of a a “dram-shop keeper,” and therefore, even although the County Court ought to have granted it notwithstanding the remonstrance of the inhabitants, (about which we express no opinion,) yet, as they did not, the defendant had no authority to engage in the prohibited trade. It may be that it was improperly withheld, but it is enough here that it was withheld, and whether rightfully or wrongfully, is not now material. In either event, the defendant was guilty if he engaged in the prohibited traffic. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

State v. Jamison, 23 Mo. 330 (Mo. 1856).

23 Mo. 330 (State v. Jamison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Nagle
91 A.2d 397 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1952)
Commonwealth v. Spence
79 A. 775 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
City of Montpelier v. Mills
85 N.E. 6 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1908)
Keilkopf v. City of Denver
19 Colo. 325 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1894)
City of Kansas v. Flanders
71 Mo. 281 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1879)
State v. Myers
63 Mo. 324 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1876)
State v. Cron
23 Minn. 140 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1876)