Legal Opinion

People v. Richmond

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 3, 1886PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Error to Yan Burén. (Mills, J.) Respondent was convicted of failing to keep his saloon closed, after nine o’clock at night, and brought error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, C. J.

Defendant was convicted of keeping his saloon open between nine and ten o’clock at night, on the third of February, .1885. He lived in the village of Hartford. The complaint followed the statute, and made no reference to the existence or non-existence of any village ordinance. The principal contest arose concerning the bearing of the proviso, in section 2274 of Howell’s Statutes, “ that in all cities and incorporated villages the common council may, by ordinance, allow the saloons, and other places where said liquors shall be sold, to remain open not later than ten o’clock on any week-day…

2Cited by16 opinions

  1. Spence v. FenchlerTexas Supreme Court · 1915
  2. People v. NeumannMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  3. People v. RepkeMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  4. People v. HawkinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  5. People v. GardnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1906

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API