Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1885-11-13
THE STATE AT LARGE.
Closed ealoon Doors

In the case OF the People vs.. Cum
merford, for keeping his saloon open contrary
10 law. appealed from the Recorders court
Detroit, b, the defendant, Chief Justice Morse
Of the Supreme court. delivers the following
opinion rigidly interpreting the law, and shut
ting OF all cvasiyr subicrfugc, hy which
saloonists endealor 90 "logally' sell liquor
after hours and ON sunday. with closed front
doors
Morse, {. 1.-The defendant was convicted
o, the ollcnsc of not keeping his saloon closed
On the night OF the Both of January, $50. from
and after the hours of 10 O'Clock IA the even
ING until O'Clock In the morning of the sue
feeding day
Before the Jury were impanclcd ia the Re
corder's court of the city of Detroit, where the
yasc was tried, the defendant 10y his counsel
moved to Qua,h the complaint on the ground
that il did not set forth any oilense under the
laws of this state, which motion was denied
and exception taken.
John Spillane, AN officer of the Metropolitan
Police testified that the defendant Kept n
saloon where intoxicating liquors were snid n
retail That there was restaurant connected
with aid saloon, that the entrance Ia the
bar-roOm, the only room where such liquors
were - Il. was on Michigan Grand ave nue.
side of the building, that the restaurant and
bar-TOOm were IN separate rooms with door
between them, which closed with sci-acting
spring That on the night IN question the en-
trance 10 the bdr-ruOm was Closed 80 lar rs the
witness knew at 10 O'Clock. and no person
went in or came out of said bar-roOm by that
entrance after that hour. That the witness
and another officer went INTO the restaurant by
the Randolph street door az II 80 O'Clock that
night; that said door was open; that the door
leading from the restaurant to the bar-rOom
N4~ closed; that they pushed il opeu and en-
tered the bar-room Just before they went IN
they saw several persons cuter the restaurant
and pass through the spring door into the bar
room. which was lighted The following
question was then asked witness. Whom did
you see IN the bar-tOOm Objected to los tie
PENDANTS counsel a. incompetent, irrelevant
and immatorial The objection was ON crrulcd,
and witness testified HAT he saw The de
lcuttuni and others al the bar and the baftcnd-
a. behind the bar O. Did You see any liquor.
Sold al that time. objected t1 tor the same
reasons given above, and oyvrruled. Witness
then gave evidence that the bartender put
drinks on the bar and Of what took place IN
the harrOOm. ana also that people were con
uuually going m and coming out of the bar
room through The restaurant until j.dO ia the
morning
Ulhcr evidence was received, tending to show
the same state OF facts Also evidence on the
part Oi the defendant tending 10 contradict
The Witnesses for the prosecution and that NO
LIQUORS were sold aud uO business done 0i auv
Kind IA the bar room
The court charged The Jury among other
things. As follows IF the saloon was open
and people went in and liquor vas sold to
them. then the saloon was uAcn in The meaning
ui thc law ID makes no difference whether
TIE door was open or not II they went into
,Ar restaurant and tiou there found any
means of access to Tie saloon and liquor was
sold them iu the saloon tlrn u was open for
business II make- no am how many
people were ina there. The only question Is Was
the saloon open for business.
IT, thi, bart Of the ohalec Z he defendant e.
ccptcd.
We lind no error IN the proceedings. The
charge WAS 700 favorable to IA, defendant
Il the iUry found the saloon lighted, the bar
tender behind the hat. with a spring door from
the restaurant which ouh needed push %
oven IL. and that people were passing ln and
out through thc door, % Was plain violation
of thu statute whether any liquor were sold on
not. IL wa, the same IN oar view Of the law,
A. an open door cor Jh')pcn entrance without
"a door The statute Contcmp Hates that a
closed door shall bee one that cannot be- opened
by "A mere push Of the hand. such door is
an evasion of the law, and its continuance In
the shape il was IN, in this case, Wc are in
cincd to think would DE violation 81 the
statute W..Lout either the defendant CT hi
bartender inside. ready Ia vail ulUn custom
crs because if any persons In the restaurant
wanted liquor they VC\'d OulN have 20 push
open this spring door and help ihemsclye,
II was also entirely competent 10 show what
took place inside 81 the lar room. II the
both at the main entrance and also az the door
leading into the restaurant, and vet after the
hour ut 10 cluc., JOB The evening, the dcicn-
daut and his bartender were inside furnishing
drinks 10 others inside hc would be amend
abc.to the statute because either the persons
inside must have got in after 10 cor have been
left inside when the doors were closed and
locked. I'm either ease ih" Law would bc yio-tt-
ed When the statute requires the doors Ia lc
closed il means that mo- one shall be inside or
get inside thereafter before lawful hours al
least with the consent of the defendant 0r his
authorized agents.
We bad supposed the meaning of the term
"clu~td door under the statute had been fully
heretofore ~ forth bv this court in the ease of
Kurt vs.. People 33 Mich. %? People v.
Waldvogcl, 90 Mich. 3i People vs. Blake, -
STD. and others II l. not alone the intent or
purpose for which the saloon Is kept open that
Is offensive 10 the law, but also The opportuni-
" furnished persons tp obtain liquors ~ the
hours and on rhe dav, prohibited b, the
statute.
We think the complaint sufficient There
bc M no error the Judgment II the Recorder
Court - affirmed
The other Justices concUrrcd.