107 Minn. 184
Decided February 19, 1909
Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1909-02-19
Defendant was charged in the municipal court, of Minneapolis of violating the wineroom ordinance of that city. The case was tried on stipulated facts before Waite, J., who ordered that defendant pay a fine of $25, or in default thereof be imprisoned in the city workhouse not exceeding thirty days. From an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial, he appealed.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1909
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1909-02-19
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1(dissenting).
¶2I dissent. The ordinance should be reasonably interpreted so as to effectuate the apparent legislative intent. The construction placed on it by the majority opinion is unreasonable, and if logically followed would prohibit a bar in a hotel renting rooms to guests. The purpose of the ordinance was to prevent “the wineroom evil.” The room here involved did not make possible the sale of liquors in secret apartments; and its use did not violate the plain intent of the ordinance. ■