St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-01-08
Supreme Cpwrt.

kce " OF. dui halfway SNhAPohJ
the defendants by order OF court
Supreme CpWrt.
DECISIONS:
The State of Minnesota, responder Mt VS.. Geo.
Kantler, appellant:s1
Sylabus-A city charter requiring the city
! council to hold STATED meetings." but max
| ing no provision as to the manner In which
the time for holding OF such meetings snaii
| be fixed, the city council may upon simple
motion prescribe such time, and the time Tor
the holding of stated meetings may be changed
| by the action of the city council alone upon
mere motion, although it had been previously
fixed by formal resolution, approved oy
the mayor and published,
! A city ordinance prohibiting the sale OF
Z LIQUOR without license and imposing certain
regulations upon the business. among which
was one restricting It to certain districts OF
the city to be designated by the mayor, con-
sidered unconstitutional as to the last named
ATTEMPTED restriction, but otherwise valid.
| A subsequent amendment OF the uncoD-
stitutionaI portion of the ordinance, the
amendment designating the districts within
which only the business might be authorized,
held a valid amendment.
/
icating liquor outside OF such license dis
tricts, without license, constituted the pre-
scribed offence Of selling without license.
OPINION.
The defendant was convicted upon pros
ecution for selling intoxicating liquor with
out license, in violation of an ordinance OF
the city of Minneapolis. The ordinance was
originally enacted in April, 1884, and was
amended in June, 1884.
The grounds upon which the defendant
contests the legality of the conviction may
be thus stated:
/. The ameudatory ordinance was not
legally enacted, because its first reading was
not at legal meeting of the common
council.
q The original ordinance was unconstitu-
tional and void, and 1t was not rendered valid
| by the amendment which did not in terms re-
enact the original ordinance, but merely
amended the portions of it which had
involved the unconstitutional features.
8. The ordinance as amended absolutely
prohibits the sale Of liquors in the city, out
side of certain prescribed districts, and the
act alleged against the defendant. being
done outside of such districts, did not con-
stitute the offense of selling without q
license.
l. The charter providee that 1.-THE city
council shall hold stated meetings, and the
mayor may call special meeting by notice.
1t shall determine the rules of its own
proceedings. and have power to compel the
attendance of absent members" No provi-
sion Is made as TO the manner in which the
times for the holding Of the stated meetings
of the council shall be prescribed. At a
| legal meeting Of the council on
the Esd of April, 1884, a formal
resolution was adopted designating
the second and fourth Saturdays
of each month as the times for holding future
stated meetings. This resolution was APP
proved by the mayor and published as pre-
scribed by the charter in respect to all reso-
lutions and ordinances. At regular meet
| ing on the Both Of April, 1884, by simple
motion then passed, the coun-
Gil designated the first and
third Wednesday of each month for
the holding Of future stated meetings. The
amendatory ordinance was first introduced
and read at a meeting held on the first We'd
nesday Of June, 1884, (June ~. The legal
ity of this meeting as a stated meeting is
called in question.
In the absence of any provision desig-
Tile III WHICH lDt LllHcs lOI
holding stated meetings Of the council should
be fixed the city council had the power of
determination. 1t required only such
action on their part as expressed the
will OF that body. No more was required
than the adoption Of a simple motion. APP
proval by the mayor and publication were
both unnecessary and added nothing to the
force Of the adoption Of the resolution Of the
council.
The council was in no measure Invested OF
the power Of determination which the charter
in effect confers solely upon II, by the fact
that the mayor had formally approved its
first action in the premises; nor did the fac:
that the will Of the council had been ex-
pressed In the form of a resolution,
and had been published, render necessary
that In all subsequent action taken by that
body the same formalities should be observed.
The meeting OF June was therefore legal
stated meeting OF the city council.
1.-THE principal ground upon which II
Is claimed that the ordinance, as amended, is
void, rests upon the fact, declared by this court
In re Wilson 10, n. w. r. 723, that section
! 9 OF the original ordinance was uncoustitu-
tional, in that II delegated 10 the mayor the
duty Of designating the ''active patrol dis
tricts, outside Of which 1t was In effect de-
clared by the ordinance that the selling OF
liquor should not be authorized by license.
II is contended that section Of the original
ordinance being void, the attempted amend
| meut of IL, by an ordinance in terms strik-
| Ing out that section, and in place thereof de-
clariug the territory, which should constitute
the patrol districts was also void.
II may be conceded. without onsideration,
that II the entire original ordinance had been
void. either because Of some defect In the
mode Of its enactment or from any other
cause, the mere amendment Of section 9
would not have been effectual 10 create q
valid and enforcible ordinance. Beyond this
| the authorities cited by appellant do not 90.
But that the invalidity Of section
had not the effect 10 render invalid the
whole ordinance Is spparentfrom n consid-
Grafton Of the terms OF the ordinance, and
FROM the obvious intention Of the city
council.
The ordinance was enacted pursuant TO
legislative authority TO license and regulate
all persons vending"
Intoxicating liquors aud to "restrain any
person from vending unless duly
! licensed by the city council" We will in
dictate In general terms terms the principal
provisions Of the ordinance.
Section OF the ordinance euscts, that no
person shall sell, etc, within the city with
out irst having obtained license therefor
in the manner herein provided"
Section 9 desigustes several classes Of
persons to whom II is declared that no licen-
ses shall be granted, such as minors, those
who have been cou victed of violations Of the
ordinance, or have had q license revoked,
those who intend to carry on the business as
| ara - M or
scribed distance of a public school building.
etc, etc. (suodivision u those who intend
to carry on the business outside of these
districts, IN said city. which shall hereafter be
designated aud known as active patrol dis
| -. D.. A..l..n I'd h.--.l-...ft..