Legal Opinion

State v. Mulloy

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 4, 1905PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from. Barry Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry G. Pepper, Judge. (1) The court committed error in permitting the witness Mayhew to testify that defendant was engaged in the saloon business. It was necessary for the State to prove by competent evidence that defendant had a license as a dramshop keeper. Secondary evidence could not be received of that fact except on timely notice and refusal to produce license. State v. Kurtz, 64 Mo. App. 123; State v. Reppetto, 66 Mo.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.

Defendant appealed from a conviction on an information charging him with a violation of section 3011, of the Dramshop Law, R. S. 1899, that is, that having a license as a dramshop keeper, he kept his dramshop open on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday. The record fails to show that defendant was arraigned or that an issue was tendered by his entry of his plea of not guilty. No notice was served on defendant to produce his dramshop license at the trial. After the trial began defendant was asked by the prosecuting attorney if he would produce his license; his counsel answered…

2Cases cited3 opinions

State v. BarnettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
State v. ReppettoMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
State v. GillespieMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904

3Cited by3 opinions

State v. MeagherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
State v. HallMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
State v. MadeiraMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907