Minnesota Supreme Court, 1882

State v. Heitsch

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 10, 1882 · Berry

29 Minn. 134; 12 N.W. 353; 1882 Minn. LEXIS 64 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

M. E. Clapp and Knute Nelson, for appellant., Win. J. Hahn, Attorney General, for the State.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1923, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Isaacson (Minn. 1923)
State v. Washed Sand & Gravel Co. (Minn. 1917)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Berry, J.

The complaint in this case evidently aims to charge an offence under the last sentence of Gen. St. 1878, c. 16, § 10. To make out that offence (which is wholly statutory) every one of the ingredients embraced in its statutory definition must be present. People v. Allen, 5 Denio, 76. One of these ingredients is that the liquor is furnished after a “distinct, written notice to any tavern, hotel-keeper, *135merchant, grocer, saloon-keeper, distiller, brewer, or any other person having or keeping any such intoxicating liquors, forbidding him from directly or indirectly furnishing the person or persons named in the notice with any kind of intoxicating liquor.” The offender must therefore be, at the time of the service of the notice, one of the persons thus enumerated, namely, a hotel-keeper or merchant, or person having or keeping such intoxicating liquors, etc., as the case may be. And this fact must be alleged in the complaint; otherwise it fails to charge the statutory offence, and .is consequently insufficient. State v. Richter, 23 Minn. 81. In the case at bar the complaint wholly faffs to charge that the defendant was, at the time when the notice was given, one of the persons enumerated. It is, therefore, fatally defective, and the dismissal asked for by the defendant should have been granted. As this disposes of the case, it is unnecessary to consider the other points made upon the argument.

Judgment reversed, and defendant discharged.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.