Case Name: PEOPLE v. KNOPF
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1896-04-21
Citations: 109 Mich. 145
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE v. KNOPF.
Judges: The other justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 109
Pages: 145–146

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. KNOPF.
Intoxicating Liquors—Evidence. -
A conviction of keeping a place and saloon -where intoxicating liquors were sold as a beverage, in violation of the local option law, is sustained by evidence of the selling, and that the premises occupied by the accused contained the fixtures, surroundings, and furniture usually found in an ordinary saloon, and never in a drug store, although no evidence was offered that he was not a registered pharmacist. People v. Berry, 107 Mich. 256, followed.
Exceptions before judgment from Hillsdale; Lane, J.
Submitted January 31, 1896.
Decided April 21, 1896.
George Knopf and Fred Knopf were convicted of violating the local option law.
Affirmed.
W. D. Fast, for appellants.
Guy M. Chester, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Opinion:
G-bant, J.
The conviction in this case should be affirmed. It falls directly within the rule of People v. Berry, 107 Mich. 256. The fixtures,- surroundings, and furniture were such as all know are found in the ordinary saloon, and are never the accompaniments of a drug store. The statement in the record is that—
"The people gave evidence tending to prove that the defendants sold intoxicating liquors as a beverage, and kept a saloon and place where intoxicating liquors, namely, lager beer and whisky, were kept for sale as a beverage, as alleged in the information, to such persons as applied for them, and that there was a pool, billiard, and card table in the room, and soft drinks were sold therein."
The respondents introduced no evidence.
We said in the Berry Case:
"The testimony taken disclosed the situation and character of an ordinary saloon, and there was enough testimony to make a prima facie case that the respondents were not engaged in the business of keeping a drug store, and was sufficient for the jury to find that the respondents were not druggists."
We held this sufficient aside from the evidence that they had filed no druggists' bonds.
Conviction affirmed.
The other justices concurred.