New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1912-05-01
Supreme Court Decisions

The half hundred or moro 'sdry"
towns in the state and those persons
active in an extension Of the dry zone
received blow Friday In the supreme
court ruling that the right TO require :
license for the sale of intoxicating
liquors and tho right TO prohibit their
sale extended only where the sales
we're less than five gallons. Manu-
facturers and wholesalers are exempt.
The ruling was made in the case of
the state of Minnesota ex rel Hogan,
respondent, versus P. J. Sullivan,
chief OF police of the city of East
Grand Forks. Hogan, who is the
agent for brewery, sells in case lots,
and was arrested for failing to take
out license required under the city
ordinance.
Hogan sought aid of the courts
under writ OF mandamus and by
direction of the court was released
from custody. The state supreme
court aff1rms the action of the lower
court in directing Hogan's release.
The syllabus reads rs follows:
Section 135, chapter 8, Laws 1895,
giving the city councils the power to
license and regulate the sale of intoxi-
eating liquors, construed. with
reference to the whole legislation of
the state dealing with the subject of
licensing the sale of Intoxicating
liquors and the uniform practical con-
strnction thereof, and held that it
does not apply to exclusively whole
sale dealers selling in quantities of
five gallons or more.
Another Supreme Court decision of
interest here was handed down in the
case of Herman Mueller vs.. the
Supervisors of the Town of Courtland
the past week. Herman Mueller had
petitioned the Town Supervisors of
Courtland for .cartway across his
brothers. farm. The supervisors re-
fused to lay out the cartway and upon
appeal to the District Court of
Nicollet County, the jury decided that
Mueller was entitled to the cartway.
The case was carried to the Supreme
Court, which, in sustaining the lower
court, says:
The requirement of r. L. 1905, that
an appeal is taken from the decisil n
of q town board in the matter of lay.
ing out road, etc, copy of the
notice of the appe al shall be filed with
the town clerk OF each town through
which the road involved runs, is
jurisdictional; but since no provision
is made as to how such fling must be
given, the appellant, when jurisdiction
of an appeal is challenged for lack of
such fling, may show the same by
evidence.
The order of receiving the proofs in
such cases rests in the sound discretion
of the court, and there was no abuse
of such discretion in receiving such
proofs on the trial to the jury.
Evidence to the effect that a copy of
the notice was delivered to the town
clerk at his home in the town whereof
he was clerk and that he placed it
with the other papers in the case,
where it remained until the said papers |
we're delivered to his successor, held
sufficient to Sustain the district courts |
finding that such copy was In fact
fled, though it was not Endorsed by |
The town clerk as having-been filed.
Upon an appeal to the district court |
from the refusal of . town board to
lay out . public csrtwsy, the determi-
nation of the damages incident to the
of such way 10 not In
volved: and where the determination
Of the town board is reserved it will
be for such board, under the verdict
ind the judgment entered thereon, to