Case ID: minn_59/html/0484-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State of Minnesota vs. Ole Anderson.
    Submitted on briefs Nov. 22, 1894.
    Appeal dismissed Dec. 21, 1894.
    No. 9222.
    Points argued not presented by the return.
    Appeal dismissed, because the points raised and argued are not before-us in the return.
    Appeal by defendant, Ole Anderson, from an order of the Municipal Court of the City of Minneapolis, Stephen Mahoney, J., made-June 1, 1894, denying his motion for a new trial.
    Charles W. Purple made complaint on oath before the Municipal Court that on Sunday, April 1, 1894, the defendant failed to close his saloon at No. 221 Cedar Avenue, Minneapolis, but sold intoxicating liquors by the glass there on that day. He further stated, in the complaint that Anderson was on November 23,1893, convicted in that court of a similar offense committed at the same place-on Sunday, October 8, 1893, and was fined therefor $25 and that he paid the fine.
    
      Defendant was arrested and pleaded not guilty. He was tried and found guilty May 8, 1894, but whether judgment was ever entered upon the finding or his license revoked the return does not disclose. Defendant moved for a new trial and appeals from the order refusing it. The briefs of counsel do not mention the point on which this court dismissed the appeal.
    
      Steele é Rees, for appellant.
    
      David F. Simpson, and Milton D. Purdy, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The points raised by the assignments of error and argued by counsel for appellant are not before us, for the return fails to show that any order or judgment upon the conviction has ever been made. We are advised by the record that defendant was found guilty, that a stay of proceedings was granted, a case settled, and subsequently a motion for a new trial made and denied. There is nothing to show that the court below revoked or attempted to revoke defendant’s license, as provided in the city charter (Sp. Laws 1881, ch. 76, subch. 4, § 16); and appellant’s argument is wholly devoted to the power of the court to revoke his license.

Appeal dismissed.

(Opinion published 61 N. W. 448.)