Weekly expositor. (Brockway Centre, Mich.) 1882-1894, 1885-11-12

night; that said door was open; that the door
leading from the restaurant to the bar-roou
was clCscd; that they pushed II open and en-
tered the bar-room just before they went in
they saw several persons enter 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 BARI Objected 10 by de
fendants counsel a, incompetent, irrelevant
and immaterial. The objection was oyerruled
and witness testified that he saw the de-
PENDANT and others at the bar and the bartend.
sold at that timcl Objected 10 for the same
reasons given above, and overruled. Witness
then gave evidence that the bartender put
drinks on the bar and of what took place In
the bar-room; and also that people were con-
tinually going in and coming out OF the bar
room through the restaurant until $3.50 in the
morning.
Other evidence was received, tending to show
the same state of facts; also evidence on the
part Of the defendant tending to contradict
the witnesses for the prosecution and that nc
liquors were sold and no business done OF any
kind In the bar room.
The court charged the jury among Other
things, as follows: If the saloon was open
and people went in and liquor was sold IL
them, then the saloon was open in the meaning
Of the law. IL makes no difference whether
the door was open or not. II they went into
the restaurant and from there found any
means of access to the saloon and liquor was
sold them in the saloon, then it was open fol
business. Ii makes no difference how many
people were in there, the only question Is, was
the saloon open for businessin
To this part OF the charge the defendant ex-
cepted
We find no error in the proceedings. The
charge was too favorable 10 the defendant.
If the jury found the saloon lighted, the bar.
tender behind the bar, with spring door from
the restaurant which only needed push to
open 1t, and that people were passing in and
out through the door, IL was plain violation
of the statute whether any liquor were sold OF
not. IL was the same, in our view Of the law,
as an open door Or an open entrance without
door. The statute contemplates that g
closed door shall be one that cannot be opened
by mere push of the hand. Such a door Is
an evasion Of the law, and its continuance In
the shape II was in, In this case, We are In
clined to think would be violation Of the
statute without either the defendant or hi
bartender inside, ready TO wait upon custom,
ers, because II any persons In the restaurant
wanted liquor they would only have to push
open this spring door and help themselves.
1t was also entirely competent to show what
took place inside OF the bar room. II the
saloon had been securely locked and fastened
both at the main entrant and also at the door
leading into the restaurant, and yet after the
hour OF 10 O'Clock in the evening, the deien-
dant and his bartender were inside furnishing
drinks TO Others inside he would be amend
able TO the statute, because either the persons
inside must have got in after 10 or have been
left inside when the doors were closed and
locked. In either case the law would be violat-
ed. When the statute requires the doors TO be
closed II means that no one shall be inside OF
get inside thereafter before lawful hours, al
least with the consent of the defendant or his
authorized agents.
We had supposed the meaning of the term
"closed door" under the statute had been fully
heretofore set forth by this court in the case OF
Kurtz VS.. People. 80 Mich, 232; People VS..
WAldyogel, 40 Mich. 39i; People VS.. Blake, 81
566, and others. II is no, alone the intent Oh
purpose for which the saloon is kept open that
Is offensive to the law, but also the opportuni-
ty furnished persons to obtain liquors at the
hours and on the days prohibited by the
statute.
We think the complaint sufficient. There
being no error the judgment Of the Recorders
Court Is affirmed.
The other Justices concurred.