In re Schmitker
In re Schmitker
Opinion of the Court
John H. Sehmitker was arrested and imprisoned for an alleged violation of an ordinance of the city of Crete, regulating the keeping of saloons and the sale of intoxicating liquors. Crete is a city of the second class, and entitled to exercise all the powers given by the act providing for the incorporation of such cities.
It appears that Sehmitker, on the fourteenth day of May, 1875, applied for and obtained a license in due form from the proper officer of said city, authorizing him to vend malt, spirituous, and vinous liquors in his building situated on lots seven and eight, block one hundred and forty-two, for one year, ending May 1st, 1876. The alleged violation of the ordinance of said city consisted of a sale of one glass of malt liquor at that place on the thirtieth of June, 1875.
Under this ordinance the authorities of Crete, in addition to the sum of twenty-five dollars, the amount charged and collected for the license already issued, sought to require of Schmitker the payment of the additional sum of two hundred and fifty dollars, and the taking out of a second license as a condition upon which he could legally engage in the sale of intoxicating liquors'. Had they the authority to do this? We think not. There was, certainly, no authority of law for requiring a second license to be taken out as a condition upon which this traffic could be carried on, and the proviso attached to the license issued to Schmitker was merely void of effect, and he was fully justified in disregarding it.
It is contended by counsel for the respondent that the fourth subdivision of section thirty-one of the act to incorporate cities of the second class, passed March'1st, 1871, invests the authorities of the city with power to issue a second license, and demand this additional sum. But we cannot accept this construction of that statute when
We think it is clear that the legislature intended to intrust the legalization of the liquor traffic in cities and incorporated towns to the proper authorities thereof under the restrictions and limitations found in the general license law. And it seems equally manifest that these authorities, having once determined the sum to be paid, received the money and issued the license to carry on the business at a particular place within the city, they cannot exact an additional amount, and compel him to take out a second license covering the same time and place. At all events such is our decision.
It is unnecessary to determine to what particular fund these license moneys belong when collected, as that question is not involved in the case. All that we decide is that Schmitker was not required, under the law, to take out a second license in order to legally conduct his business during the time and at the place mentioned in the one he had already received.
For these reasons it is ordered that he be at once discharged from his said imprisonment.
Judgment accordingly.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- In the matter of the application of John H. Schmitker for a writ of habeas corpus
- Status
- Published