State v. Meagher
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Barry Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry O. Pepper, Judge. (1) The court should have sustained defendant’s demurrer to the testimony. Admitting everything that the State proved there is absolutely no crime shown to have been committed under the charge and the law. There is bound to be a marked and well-defined difference between a tippling-shop and a dramshop.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Barry Circuit Court. — Hon. Henry O. Pepper, Judge. (1) The court should have sustained defendant’s demurrer to the testimony. Admitting everything that the State proved there is absolutely no crime shown to have been committed under the charge and the law. There is bound to be a marked and well-defined difference between a tippling-shop and a dramshop. It is admitted in this case that the place in question was nothing more nor less than a dramshop belonging to J. Y. Meagher, and the defendant, Billy Meagher, was the regular bartender for several years,. All the witnesses…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
1. The appellant was convicted and fined twenty-five dollars, in the Barry Circuit Court, on *269an information bottomed on section 2243, Revised Statutes 1899, charging that he kept “open a certain alehouse and tippling-shop by permitting persons to enter said alehouse and tippling-shop, and then and there drink intoxicating liquors,” on the first day of the week commonly called Sunday. The witnesses for the State designated the house mentioned in the information as a saloon, but there was no evidence that the keeper of the house had a dramshop license. On this scrap of evidence, appellant…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Mohrman v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Hussey v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1883
- State v. HecklerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- State v. KurtzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.