¶1Defendant was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor without a license in the county of Harrison in violation of the local option law. It appears that the notice for an election to determine *189whether such law would be adopted in Harrison county was published in four consecutive issues of a weekly newspaper in said county; but that counting the day of the first publication to the day of election there was only twenty-three days notice. We have repeatedly held that the statute intends that there shall be twenty-eight days notice in order that there may be a valid election. It thus appearing that there was no local option law in. Harrison county to be violated the defendant was improperly convicted. State ex rel. v. Tucker, 32 Mo. App. 620; Bean v. Co. Ct., 33 Mo. App. 635; State v. Kaufman, 45 Mo. App. 656. The .judgment will be reversed and the defendant discharged.
75 Mo. App. 188
State v. Kampman
Decided May 2, 1898
Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1898-05-02
— Hon. P. C. Stepp, Judge. (1) The notice called for by the law was absolutely essential to the validity of the election. This construction has never been doubted or overruled. State ex rel. v. Tucker, 32Mo. App. 620; Leonard v. Co. Ct., 32 Mo. App. 633; Bean v. Co. Ct., 33 Mo. App. 635; State v. Kaufman, 45 Mo. App. 656.
Relies on State ex rel. Weber v. Tucker · Bean v. County Court · State v. Kaufman
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed · Decided 1898-05-02
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1949
9 state decisions
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 →