Case ID: la_141/html/0323-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PROVOSTY, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(75 South. 67)
    No. 22389.
    STATE v. BIGGIO.
    (April 16, 1917.)
    
      (Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
    
    1. Intoxicating Liquors &wkey;>242 — Revocation oe License — Authority oe Court.
    Act No. 176 of 1908, § 6, makes it a crime for any person conducting a saloon to sell intoxicating liquors to a woman, and section 7 provides that any person convicted thereof shall, in addition to the punishment prescribed in section 6, be permanently deprived of the privilege of conducting a saloon or other place where spirituous liquors are sold, and the revocation of such privilege shall be declared by the court having jurisdiction to impose the penalties fixed by section 6. Held, that neither section 7 nor any other law authorizes the court to revoke or annul accused’s license or permit, and the sentence should merely provide in the language of the statute, or equivalent language, that accused “be permanently deprived,” etc.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 356-361.]
    2. Intoxicating Liquors <@=^242 — Revocation oe License — Authority oe Court.
    A sentence ordering that accused be deprived of the privilege of conducting a barroom in a particular parish was improper and should have extended the deprivation to the entire state.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. §§ 356-361.]
    3. Criminal Law <&wkey;1159(l) — Appeal —Review — Questions oe Fact.
    On appeal from a conviction for selling liquor to a woman in violation of statute, the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the sufficiency of the evidence.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3074, 3082, 3083.]
    Appeal froni Twenty-Sixth Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany; Prentiss B. Carter, Judge.
    Charles Biggio was convicted of an offense, and, from the judgment convicting him and revoking his license to operate a saloon, he appeals.
    Judgment annulled in part, and affirmed in part and remanded.
    Fred J. I-Ieintz, of Covington, for appellant. A. V. Coco, Atty. Gen., and J. Vol Brock, Dist. Atty., of Franklinton (Vernon A. Coco, of Marksville, of counsel), for the State.
   PROVOSTY, J.

Section 6 of Act 176, p. 239, of 1908, makes it a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment or both for any person conducting a saloon to sell intoxicating liquors to a woman; and section 7 of the same act provides that:

The person convicted of such crime “shall, in addition, to the punishment prescribed in section 6, * * * be permanently deprived thereafter of the privilege of conducting a * * * saloon * * * or other place where spirituous =s * * liquors * * * are sold; and the revocation of said privilege shall be declared by the court having jurisdiction to impose the penalties fixed by section 6.”

The accused in this case having been found guilty under section 6, the court sentenced him under that section, and then proceeded as follows:

“It is further ordered that his license and permit to operate a saloon in the town of Abita Springs, in the parish of St. Tammany, shall be revoked and annulled, and that he shall be deprived of the privilege of conducting a barroom in this parish.”

Neither said section 7, nor any other law that we know of, authorizes the court to revoke or annul the license or the permit of accused. In these respects, therefore, the sentence is unauthorized, and must be annulled. The sentence should have been made to read, in the words of the statute, or equivalent, that the accused “be permanently deprived,” etc. And, by the way, the deprivation should not be restricted to the parish, but extended to the entire state.

The woman to whom the liquor is alleged to have been sold testified that no liquor was sold to her; and accused claims that he was exculpated by this; or that, at any rate, the basis was established for a reasonable doubt. With the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, however, this court has nothing to do.

The judgment appealed from is therefore annulled in so far as it revokes the license and permit of the accused, and is affirmed in so far as it imposes a fine, etc., and the case is remanded for proper sentence to be passed under section 7 of Act 176, p. 239, of 1908.

O’NIELL, J., is of the opinion that the sentence depriving the convicted person of the privilege of conducting a barroom, ipso facto, revoked his permit, though not his license; the latter being transferable.