Hochstadler v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. Tried before Hon. ¥m. S. Mudd. At the spring term, 1881, of said court, the defendant was indicted for engaging in the business of retailing vinous, spirituous or malt liquors without a license; and, at a subsequent term, he was tried and convicted.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. Tried before Hon. ¥m. S. Mudd. At the spring term, 1881, of said court, the defendant was indicted for engaging in the business of retailing vinous, spirituous or malt liquors without a license; and, at a subsequent term, he was tried and convicted. The evidence introduced on the, trial disclosed the following facts: In the city of Birmingham there were two buildings, adjoining each other, and separated by a partition wall of brick, one called the Constantine, and the other, the Linn building. In' January, 1881, the defendant, having obtained a license for…
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
— We are of opinion that the defendant required but one license to authorize him to carry on the business of retailing, in which he is shown to have been engaged. The two rooms used by him clearly constituted but one establishment. There was but one business, under one management, and in one locality. If this was true, we think it immaterial that drinking was carried on, or retailing permitted in two rooms or apartments, one for the use of whites,'and the other for the use of negroes. These apartments were connected with *26each other by ail open entrance or archway, and were both under the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- German-American Insurance v. Commercial Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1891
- Owen v. West Alabama Butane CompanySupreme Court of Alabama · 1965
- Jebeles Bros. v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
- Anniston Electric & Gas Co. v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1915
- Courtright v. Common CouncilMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.