State v. Gill
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the municipal court of Minneapolis, Holt, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtStart, C. J.
The defendant was convicted in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis of the offense of selling malt liquors without a license, and appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
1. The defendant’s first contention is that the complaint fails to charge a public offense. The ordinance under which the defendant was convicted prohibited the selling or dealing in spirituous, vinous, fermented, or malt liquors within the limits of the city of Minneapolis by any person without having first obtained a license therefor in the manner provided by the ordinance. The complaint upon…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- City of Mankato v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- City of Jordan v. NicolinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- State v. StroudSupreme Court of Iowa · 1896
- City of Jordan v. NicolinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
- State v. StorySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
3Cited by9 opinions
- Bracy v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1916
- Luther v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1909
- State v. HemrichWashington Supreme Court · 1916
- State v. GibbsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- In re LockmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1910
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.