Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1884-12-25
STATE SUPREME COURT.
Important Decision On the Subject q
Dram-Shop License = Jurisdiction OF
County Courts Defined.

Important Decision On the Subject q
Dram-Sh0p License Jurisdiction Oh
County Courts Defined.
| JEFFERSON CRY, NO.. December Is
In the Supreme Court this morning an
opinion of considerable importance was filed
by Commissioner Martin in the case OF the
State VS.. Evans.
The defendants was indicted by the Grand
| liquor as a dram shop keeper without a IL
cense. At the trial he admitted the charge
contained in the indictment. but offered IN
evidence a license issued to him as dram
shop keeper by the County Conrt OF gass
County, covering the time of the admitted
Gated under the seal of the County Clerk.
and after reciting the fact that defend
ant had filed an application to keep aram-
had paid the lice Sc tax and filed bond
which had been approved, purporting TO an,
fhorize him to keep a dram shop at MS siiu
stand for the term of six months.
The defendant next submitted in evidence
| license, in which it is recited that a dram
shop license had been granted to defenuaht
at his stand in block 6. lot Ii, in the City OF
Harrisonville, upon Il petition heretofore
filed; that after examining said petition the
Court find that majority Of the assessed
tax payers of both city and block have signed
said petition, and that defendant is OF good
character. The Court orders that Dram
shop license be issued for six months, etc.
The State then, against the objection OF de-
fendant submitted i'll evidence the petition
Of defendant for a dram shop license, the
which, it was claimed, tended to prove that
the petition upon which the license was
gra dn qua not contain a malorlty OF In; the
me defendant then produced witnesses,
whose testimony tended to prove that the
county Court before granting license on the
petition, examined said petition and tax
books, and hear evidence concerning the
legality of the petition and came to the con-
requisite majority of petitioners to justify
the issuing OF a license: The Court then re-
a N 2frrIa fi(r St-ad hxyf ba
to the effect that, under all the evidence, it
was the duty of the jury to acquit him.
structed the jury to find the defendant guilty
if they believed from the evidence that the
being petitioned for by majority of the
assessed tax-paying citizens of Harrison
vile, as shown by the assessment read in ev-
court q verdict of guilty and assessed Il fine
OF $40 against the defendant, from which this
appeal is prosecuted.
JURISDICTION OF COUNTY COURTS.
Exclusive jurisdiction on the subject of is
conferred upon the County Court Section
543s, as amended in the session acts OF 1888,
reads as follows: Applications for a license
writing to the County Court, and shall
state, specifically, where the dram shop
the opinion that the applicant is person of
good character, the Court may grant Ii
sense Gems i for six E months; provided however,
that the applicant is person of good
character, and the petition required in Sec
ton 5i42 of this chapter contains the proper
names subscribed thereto of two thirds oil
the assessed tax-paying citizens, as shown
by the last previous annual assessment of
the city, incorporated town or municipal
township, where such dram shop is to be
kept, then the Court shall grant such IL
cense" Session Acts 1888, p. 81.
Section 5442, as amended in 1888. declares
that at shall not be lawful for any County
in any city containing less than $500 inhab-
1tants, or any Incorporated town or munich
pal township until a majority both of the as
sessed and tax-paying citizens therein, and
in the block or square in which the dram
shop is to be kept, shall sign a petition ask
therein.
1t thus seems that the exclusive pow er of
granting licenses for the sale Of liquor is
vested in our County Courts, and that in the
exercise of such power they act in obedience
to their opinion and Judgment. 1t is for them
son of good character, ana whether or not
the preliminary tition is signed by ma
and square wherein the dram shop is to be
located.
The counsel for defendant have submitted
an able and exhaustive brief in support OF
the position, that, after the County Court had
reached conclusion, expressed in its
order and judgment, such order or Judgment
is binding and conclusive until reversed on
appeal, or overthrow in some proceeding
directly attacking it, and that it could not be
the .)ne before us.
The Principle of law implied in this position
ildS OuE dSStuLs anu IL Is uuHeceS-
sary for us to do anything more to add this
expression to the many previous decisions OF
this court announcing the same result. Estate
ex rel. VS.. Weather5y, Is No., II; Jeffries vs..
Wright, 81 Mo-, go; johnson VS.. Beasley 65
NO., $50; Enniss VS.. Gray. f6 Mo-, GA; Fulker
son VS.. Davenport 20 Mo-, SAG; Scott VS..
Crews, Y NO., 263; Gray vs.. Bowles, "A No.,
423; Henry VS.. Mckerie, IS Mo-, 4l6; Rally VS..
From this it follows that the Court below
erred in admitting testimony for the pur.
pose of proving that the County Court
was in error when it adjudged that the de-
PENDANT had complied with the law and
was entitled to license. 1t is possible
that the County Court erred in its Judgment |
and order, but such errors not be |
viewed by the Circuit Court in collateral |
Upon the evidence in the record the de-
PENDANT was entitled to an acquittal, and the |
Court should have so instructed. Accord |
ingly, the Judgment is reversed and the de.
PENDANT discharged. All concur.
ALEXANDER MARTIN.