#### Koch, Plaintiff in error, vs. The State, Defendant in error.

*May 5*—

May *21, 1914.*

*Intoxicating liquors: Licenses: Limit.*

The ratio limit fixed hy sec. *1565ct,*Stats., having already been exceeded in a town, no license could be granted for the sale of liquor therein upon premises which, though used under a valid license for saloon purposes up to June 30, 1907, had thereafter for more than three years ceased to he used for such purposes, where the applicant was not a person who, for the reasons stated in said section, might he licensed to continue the sale of liquor in a changed location.

EkROR, to review a judgment of tbe circuit court for Eorest county: W. B. QuiNLAN, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

Tbe plaintiff in error was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors without a valid license, and brings bis writ of error to reverse tbe judgment. Tbe facts were not in dispute. Tbe premises on wbicb tbe plaintiff in error was conducting a saloon business at tbe time of tbe alleged illegal sale, viz. September 8, 1913, are situated in tbe town of Wabeno, Eor-est county, and were used for saloon purposes by one Krueger under a valid license June 30, 1907. Tbey ceased to be so used on tbe following day, remained vacant for a time, were used for a year for a general store, and on January 24, 1911, were again used for saloon purposes. At tbis time tbe plaintiff in error, wbo bad not theretofore been engaged in such business, obtained a license from tbe town authorities for that purpose, rented tbe premises, and commenced to use them for saloon purposes. At tbe time tbis license was issued there bad been theretofore granted by tbe town saloon licenses in excess of tbe ratio limit prescribed by sec. 1565<£, Stats. How long business was done under tbis license does not appear. On June 16, 1913, tbe town board granted ten saloon licenses, tbe population of tbe town being but 1,877. On tbe following day tbe board in form granted a license to *438the plaintiff in error. He did not take it out of tbe clerk’s office until September 5th following.

The cause was submitted for the plaintiff in error on the brief of *P. J. Winter,*and for the defendant in error on that of the *Attorney General*and *J. E. Messer schmidt,*assistant attorney general.

WiNslow, C. J.

The ratio limit fixed by sec. 1565d, ■Stats., having been exceeded before the license in question was granted, that license must be void unless the case comes within the exceptions named in the section.

Following the previous decisions of this court upon said section, viz. *State ex rel. Marvin v. Larson,*153 Wis. 488, 140 N. W. 285, and *Zodrow v. State,*154 Wis. 551, 143 N. W. 693, it must be held that the present case does not come within those exceptions. The purpose of the exceptions was, notwithstanding the ratio limit may have been passed, (1) to make it possible for the use of the premises for saloon purposes to be *continued;*(2) to make it possible for the tenant to be licensed to *continue*the business at another place if for certain named reasons he could not continue it on the premises. The entire discontinuance of the use of the premises for saloon purposes after July 1, 1907, for more than three years takes them out of the first class of exceptions, and there is no claim that plaintiff in error comes within the second class.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.