State v. Estabrook
Supreme Court of Alabama
On points referred from the Circuit Court of Montgomery. The defendant was indicted for retailing spirituous liquors in less quantities than one quart, without having first obtained a li-cence for that purpose, from the county court of Montgomery.— The cause was tried on the traverse of the defendant, the jury found a verdict of guilty, a fine of thirty dollars was imposed, and a judgment was rendered for that sum and costs..
Read the full summary
On points referred from the Circuit Court of Montgomery. The defendant was indicted for retailing spirituous liquors in less quantities than one quart, without having first obtained a li-cence for that purpose, from the county court of Montgomery.— The cause was tried on the traverse of the defendant, the jury found a verdict of guilty, a fine of thirty dollars was imposed, and a judgment was rendered for that sum and costs.. It was proved that a licence was granted on the 9th of October, 1843, by the city council of Montgomery, to a firm of which the defendant was a partner, authorising them…
1Opinion of the Court
COLLIER, C. J
The act of 1835, requires every person who shall desire to obtain a licence to retail spirituous liquors in this .State, to prodiice to the county court of the county, in which he proposes to obtain a licence, the. recommendation of six reputable freeholders or householders, resident yvithin the same, and within five miles of the applicant, and enter into bond with surety, to be approved by the court, and pay thirty dollars, &c.~[Clay’s Dig. 556, § 18.] By the act of 1839, the form of the recommendation is prescribed, and it must affirm that the persons who make it, believe that…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Mayor v. AllaireSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
- Withers v. State ex rel. PoseySupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
- City Council v. ShoemakerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1874
- Osborne v. Mayor of MobileSupreme Court of Alabama · 1870
- Hamilton v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1878