People v. Morris
New York Supreme Court
Error from the St. Lawrence oyer and terminer. The defendant was tried on an indictment for selling spirituous liquors andpermittingthesametobe drank in his grocery store, without having obtained a license as a tavern keeper.
Read the full summary
Error from the St. Lawrence oyer and terminer. The defendant was tried on an indictment for selling spirituous liquors andpermittingthesametobe drank in his grocery store, without having obtained a license as a tavern keeper. On the trial, he admitted that on various days between the 10th October and the 16th December, 1833, he sold spirituous liquors in his grocery, in the village of Ogde?zs5wrg-A,received pay for the same, and permitted the liquor to be drank in his grocery, and that he had not at the time a license to keep a tavern ; but he insisted that he had a right so to do by virtue…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court,
Nelson, J.
The defendant insists that the statute under which he has been convicted is inoperative, upon the grounds, 1. That the power or franchise of the corporation of the village of Ogdensburgh to grant licenses to grocers to sell spirituous liquors to be drank in their houses is a vested right, and cannot be impaired or taken away; and 2. That if *328guch power can be taken away, it can be done only by bill having the assent of two-thirds of the members elected to each branch of the legislature, in conformity to the 9th § of the 7th art. of the constitution of the state.
As to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ex parte Harrington & Hubbell v. Trustees of the Village of RochesterNew York Supreme Court · 1833
3Cited by22 opinions
- Story v. . New York Elevated R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Metropolitan Board of Excise v. . BarrieNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Payne & Dewey v. TreadwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- People ex rel. Blanding v. BurrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Milam County v. J. M. BatemanTexas Supreme Court · 1880
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.