Case Name: PEOPLE v. CONGDON
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1904-07-07
Citations: 137 Mich. 133
Docket Number: Docket No. 1
Parties: PEOPLE v. CONGDON.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 133–134

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. CONGDON.
1. Intoxicating Liquors — Druggists—Unlawful Sale.
A druggist, who habitually sells intoxicating liquors as a beverage, may be prosecuted under the local option act or general liquor law for keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold unlawfully.
2. Criminal Law — Intoxicating Liquors — Testimony—Bill of Particulars.
In a prosecution for keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold unlawfully, the prosecutor is not bound to furnish a bill of particulars of the testimony upon which he relies.
Exceptions before judgment from Van Buren; Carr, J.
Submitted April 21, 1904.
(Docket No. 1.)
Decided July 7, 1904.
J. L. Congdon was convicted of violating the local option law.
Affirmed.
Thomas J. Cavanaugh and Cook & Donovan, for appellant.
Charles A. Blair, Attorney General, and David Anderson, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Opinion:
Hooker, J.
The impression seems to exist in the rminds of some of the profession that one who professes to keep a drug store, giving a bond as a druggist, may, to all intents and purposes, keep a saloon, or habitually sell liquor as a beverage, without being liable, under the local option act or general liquor law for keeping a place where intoxicating liquor is sold as a beverage unlawfully. This-is a misapprehension, as we have repeatedly shown by decided cases. Anderson v. Van Buren Circuit Judge, 130 Mich. 697 (90 N. W. 692); People v. Remus, 135 Mich. 629 (98 N. W. 397); People v. Robinson, 135 Mich. 511 (98 N. W. 12); People v. Shuler, 136 Mich. 161 (98 N. W. 986).
We know of no case that holds that, where one is charged with the statutory offense of keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold as a beverage, the prosecutor is obliged to furnish a bill of particulars of the testimony upon which he will rely to prove the charge. See People v. Remus, supra; People v. McKinney, 10 Mich. 54, 92.
We think it unnecessary to allude to other questions, all of which are covered by our decisions.
The judgment is affirmed.
The other Justices concurred.