Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

68 W. Va. 103

State v. Wamsley

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1910

West Virginia Supreme Court · decided 1910-11-01

<p>Error to Circuit Court, Randolph County.</p> <p>George W. Wamsley was convicted of obstructing his bar from view from the street on Sunday, and he brings error.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1910-11-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1972

6 state decisions

201910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Williams, Judge:

¶1Defendant, a licensed saloon keeper in the town of Pickens, Randolph county, was indicted, tried, and convicted for a violation of section 1. of chapter 14 of the Acts of 1908 extra session of the Legislature, and was adjudged to pay a fine of $50.00 and be imprisoned in the county jail for six months, and his license 'was revoked. He brings error. The indictment charges him with obstructing from plain view from the street, on a Sunday, his bar and all parts of the room where spirituous liquors were sold, by means of screens, etc., on the windows of his saloon. There is evidence in the record to support the indictment and the jury are the judges of the facts. The court did not err in overruling defendant’s motions for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment.

¶2• Counsel insists that the penalty is out of all proportion to the degree of the offense committed, and is in violation of section 5, Article III of the Constitution of West Virginia and also in violation-of both the State and Federal constitution prohibiting excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments. These questions were thoroughly considered, and passed on, by us in the case of State v. Woodward, decided at the present term. The law is there reviewed in a very carefully prepared opinion by Judge BRAHHON, and it is not necessary to enter upon an extended discussion of them again. This case clearly falls within the principles decided in that case, and is governed by it. In fact, the two cases were indictments for like violations of the same statute. The syllabus in that case is also the law of this case. The judgment of the lower court will be affirmed. ' Affirmed.

/68/wva/103 · .json · Public domain