Provo City v. Shurtliff
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of tbe district court of the first district. The opinion states the facts. The cause was argued at the January term, 1884, and the judgment of the district court was reversed, EmeRson, J., dissenting. Subsequently a rehearing was granted, and, after re-argument, the following opinion was delivered:
1Opinion of the Court
Twiss, J.:
This is an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, wherein he is charged with the violation of an ordinance of the plaintiff, entitled “An ordinance to prevent the manufacture and sale of spirituous, vinous and other intoxicating liquors as a beverage.”
*16The defendant is charged witli unlawfully selling and delivering, witliin the territorial limits of the plaintiff, to one E. M. Peck, Jr., in one transaction, spirituous and fermented liquors, to-wit: one glass of whisky and two glasses of beer, to be used as a beverage, in violation of the provisions of said ordinance.
T…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- City of Keokuk v. DressellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1878
- Tulloss v. City of SedanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- Logan City v. BuckUtah Supreme Court · 1883
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wise Terminal Co. v. McCormickSupreme Court of Virginia · 1907
- City of Tacoma v. KeiselWashington Supreme Court · 1912
- State v. CallowayIdaho Supreme Court · 1906