St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-06-08
A FIVE-GALLON LIMIT.
The Supreme Court Defines the
Law of Liquor Licenses.

LILO supreme NOuEN 1JCAuOS GuG
Law of Liquor Licenses.
By decision rendered yesterday in
the supreme court, Intoxicating liquor
in less quantity than five gallons
cannot be sold without license, even
if the liquor is drank Off the premises.
Two cases were disposed of by the de-
cision. They are:
State of Minnesota VS.. George Benz.
The defendant was indicted for selling
liquor-one pint of whisky-without a
license. The cause was submitted to the
district court upon an agreed statement OF
court having found the defendant guilty,
certified the case to this court for review
upon the questions of law involved. The de-
PENDANT is "a wholesale liquor dealer. He
ises when sold. He does sell in small guam
titles. as pint. quart, ETC.. at his place of
business to others than liquor dealers, but
only in sealed packages: He sold pint of
whisky, as alleged in the Indictment, the
same being in quart bottle, and the pur-
chaser not being dealer in such goods: 1t
was not sold to be drank OH the premises.
The defendant relies upon the proposition
that section 4. chapter Is, General Statutes
1898, designating as unlawful sales without
d license in a less quantity than five gallons.
was repealed by the legislature OF 1887; aud
that as the law now in force contains no like
or! corresponding express designation, its
prohibitions. and penalties are applicable
only as to sales Of liquor to be drank on the
premises.
; Syiabus-The provision of the statute in
force prior to 1887, with respect to the sale
of intoxicating liquor, prohibiting sales i'll
Incense, was not repealed by the legislature
of}lSS7. The statute still makes such sales
illegal even though the liquor be sold in a
eorked bottle, and not to be drank on the
premises. A wholesale liqtor dealer is not
exempt from the operation of this law.
! D ,';.S DICKINSON, j..
! The same decision is fled i'll the appeal,
St@te of Minnesota vs. G. s. Bracket. Brack-
EFT is grocer. and was indicted for selling a.
Quart bottle of whisky without q license.
Carrie B. Mccall, respondent, VS.. Bush
nell & Bushnell, appellants.
Syllabus-A contracting party who has
knowingly executed written instrument, IN
tended to embody and evidence the agree
ment, should not be allowed to. avoid the
legal effect of the instrument on the ground
thatits ex eeution was procured by fraud, I'M
less the proof be clear and strong. Evidence
held MOTTO Justify a verdict avoiding a re-
lease executed by the plaintiff after it had
been read to her: the plaintiff claiming that
she paid no attention to the reading because
of previous fraudulent statements as to its
contents. Order reversed. DICKINSON, j.
Alphonse Blondel ct al, respondents,
VS.. Charles LIE Vesconte, plaintiff.
Order reversed. DICKINSON, }.
State of Minnesota ct al. Annie Nc
Carly relator. respondent, VS.. Andrew
Nelson, as treasurer of Ramsey county,
appellant. Order overriding demurrer
reversed and the writ quashed.
DICKINSON, J.
Western Land Association. appellant,
VS.. E. A. McComber, respondent. Or
der affirmed. DIcKENsO><, j.
State OF Minnesota, respondent, vs..
George Abusch, appellant. Order at
firmed. DICKINSON. J.