Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-12-11
OREGON SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Fun Text Published BY Courtesy Of l. A. Tur0., R.,..
Supreme Court VI ue
Barton '. The Recorders Court Of
Vale, Ore, ct al, Malheur County.
Decided December .. 1911

Decided December 8, 1911
T. A. Barton, appellant, V. The Re-
corder's Court of Vale, Oregon 2 q
Wilson, Recorder and ] I nolan
Marshal, of the said city. resnondI
ents. Appeal from the Circuit co,r,
for Malheur county. The Hon nal.
ton Biggs, Judge. Argued and sub.
mitted Nov. 2, 1911, at Pendleton
Geo. w. Hayes and Brooke & Tom.
linson, on brief for appellant p
NJ. Duncan (McCulloch, Soliss q Nun
can on brief) for respondent FalTin
c. ]. Affirmed.
Eakin, c. ]. This is an appeal from
Judgment of the circuit court in a
proceeding to review a judgment of
the recorders court of the citv Of
Vale, Ore, wherein plaintiff was
found guilty of selling intoyicatine
liquors within the city, without bave
ing obtained a license therefor
1t appears that prior to the general
election OF 1910 the sale Of intoxicat-
ing liquors was prohibited within the
city of Vale and the result of that
election was against prohibition
that the city being without an ordi.
nance governing the subject of the
sale of intoxicating liquors, the com
mon council on December Is. 1910
for the purpose of perfecting some
plan by which the council could dis.
pose of licenses for the sale of. and
the traffic in, intoxicating liquors
adopted resolution that the council
proceed at once to receive open COM
petitive bids for liquor licenses for
the ensuing two years and award a
license to the best bidder, reserving
the right to reject any and all bids
Thereupon there was introduced by
Councilman H. H. High an ordinance
covering "the liquor question" which
was read before the council The
council then adjourned until 7:3C
o'clock p. m. of the same day. al
which time the mayor announced
that the council was ready to receive
bids, and Mr.. Thomas bid $4,000
which bid was accepted Thereupor
the rules were suspended and the or.
dinance above referred to was passed
The ordinance fixed $4,000 per an.
nun as the price for liquor license In
the city of Vale.
The foregoing is all that is dis.
closed in the record as to the ordi
nance or its terms. It was not ap.
proved by the mayor nor vetoed unit
at least after the 10Th, of December
1910. AS disclosed by the record the
council on December 10, 1910, met
pursuant to the call of H. H. High
president of the council, who was
acting as mayor, Mayor Clark being
absent from the city, and stated tha
the object of the meeting was to con
slider, pass or reject an ordinance
regulating the sale of intoxicating IL
quors and to grant a license for thu
sale of the same in the north pre-
cinct of the city of Vale, After the
ordinance was read before the coun'
Gil, which had been submitted to it al
a previous meeting by Councilman
H. P. Osborne, some changes ant
amendments were made and 1t wa
passed and approved by the acting
mayor. A copy of the ordinance ap
pears in the record, and is referred
to therein as ordinance No. 6S.
On December 27, 1910, Mayor Clarl
filed with the recorder a message t.
the council, vetoing ordinance No. 6S
referring to the one passed DeCembei
Is, 1910.
Section 1 of ordinance No. 6S, be
ing the one passed on Dec. 18th, pro
vides: THAT no person, firm or cor
poration, shall within the corporat,
limits of the city Of Vale, directly o.
indirectly, in person or by another
sell, barter, exchange, deliver, or Civ,
away, with the purpose of evadint
this ordinance any spirituous
malt or vinous liquors, without frs
obtaining license therefor, as here
inbefore provided in this ordinance,
and proceeds to provide for tbs issu
ing of licenses under certain Circum
stances and conditions; how a sa
loon shall be conducted and requir
ing a bond for the faithful perform
ance of the terms of the ordinance
and provides penalties for violation
OF any or the provisions Oh lne vi vi
nance; and that the license shall b
issued for the term Of two years.
The assignments of error involv
four questions. First 1t is contendel
that the ordinance is void because
contains a clause declaring an emer
gency and providing that the ordi
nance shall be in force from and afte
it is approved by the mayor
Whether an emergency clause in
statute is valid or not affects only tn
time it shall go into operation, AM
if invalid does not render the statut
void. This is the effect Of the hold
ing in Sears v. Multnomah county
40 Or. AZ, and the defendants viola
tion of the ordinance occurred ION