People v. Beadle
Michigan Supreme Court
Exceptions before judgment from Clinton. (Smith, J.) Respondent was convicted of “having been intoxicated in an assemblage of people, etc.” The facts are stated in the opinion. “No law shall embracé more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title,” Const. Art. 4, § 20, and this provision is mandatory : Cooley’s Const.
Read the full summary
Exceptions before judgment from Clinton. (Smith, J.) Respondent was convicted of “having been intoxicated in an assemblage of people, etc.” The facts are stated in the opinion. “No law shall embracé more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title,” Const. Art. 4, § 20, and this provision is mandatory : Cooley’s Const. Lim. §§ 82,150. The Legislature, in the title to act 259, Laws of 1881, had regard to the sale of intoxicating liquors — to the seller — not the buyer or the drinker: Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 277; Stewart v. Father Mathew Society, 41 Mich. 67; Anderson v. Hill, 54…
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
The respondent was convicted in justice’s cour.t *24of having’ been drunk and intoxicated in an assemblage of people, in the dwelling-house of one Cyrus Smith, in the township of Bingham, in the county of Clinton, “ collected together for the purpose of a social dance,” contrary to section 7 of act No. 259, of the Session Laws of 1881. How. Stat. § 2276.1
Upon appeal to the circuit court the question of the constitutionality of this section was properly raised by his counsel. The circuit judge held the section to be constitutional, and the respondent was again convicted.
The case comes to this…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kurtz v. PeopleMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by11 opinions
- Hartford Fire Insurance v. RaymondMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- In re HauckMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- State v. Great Western Coffee & Tea Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- State v. FulksSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- People v. BlumrichMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.