Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

29 Mo. App. 278

State v. Huntley

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 14, 1888

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1888-02-14

<p>Criminal Law — Selling Liquors Without License. — It is no defence against a criminal prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor without a license, that the defendant presented a petition to the county’ court for a license to sell intoxicating liquors, signed by more than two-thirds of the tax-paying citizens of the township ; that he tendered a dram-shop keeper’s bond, as required by law, and also the amount of license as fixed by an order of the county court; that he possessed all the qualifications of a dram-shop keeper under the laws, but that the county court nevertheless failed to grant him a license.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1888-02-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1941

4 state decisions

201888189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Thompson, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This was a criminal prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors without a' license. No appearance has been entered by counsel; no errors have been assigned; no briefs have been filed by either party. We have, nevertheless, examined the record as required by the statute, and find that the defence set up at the trial was, that the defendant offered evidence tending to show that he presented a petition to the county court for a license to sell intoxicating liquors, signed by more than two-thirds of the tax-paying citizens of the township ; that he tendered a dram-shop keeper’s bond, as required by law, and also the amount of license as fixed by an order of the county court; that he possessed all of the qualifications of a dram-shop keeper under the laws; but that the county court nevertheless failed to grant him a license. It is needless to argue that the court committed no error in excluding this evidence.

¶3The judgment will be affirmed. It is so ordered.

All the judges concur.
/29/moapp/278 · .json · Public domain