Case ID: stew-p_4/html/0083-01.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

DAVIS VS. THE STATE.
    1. The permission of a city corporation, to one, to retail spiritous liquors, does not protect such person from an indictment by the State, for retailing without a license.
    Davis, being indicted, under the statutes of this State, in Mobile Circuit Court, for retailing spiritous liquors, without license, in that city, offered proof, in excuse therefor, that the city corporation had granted him license and permission to vend liquors.
    Judgment being rendered against him, this point was reserved for the consideration of the Supreme Court.
    
      Gordon, for Da vis — Attorney General, contra.
    
   Per Curiam.

George Davis was indicted, in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, for retailing spirits, without a license. The retailing proved, was in the city of Mobile.

The defendant proved, that he had retailed, by the permission and license of the Mayor and Aider-men of the city of Mobile. The Circuit Court gave judgment against the defendant, but reserved the point, for the opinion and judgment of this Court.

It in too clear, to admit a doubt, that the excuse setup by the defendant, is unavailable; and- that the license, from the Mayor and Aldermen of the city, could not protect him from the penalty of the statute, imposed on retailers, without license.

Judgment affirmed by the Court.