State v. Kampman
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Harrison Circuit Court. — Hon. P. C. Stepp, Judge. (1) The notice called for by the law was absolutely essential to the validity of the election. This construction has never been doubted or overruled. State ex rel. v. Tucker, 32Mo. App. 620; Leonard v. Co. Ct., 32 Mo. App. 633; Bean v. Co. Ct., 33 Mo. App. 635; State v. Kaufman, 45 Mo. App. 656.
1Opinion of the Court
Ellison, J. —
Defendant was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor without a license in the county of Harrison in violation of the local option law. It appears that the notice for an election to determine *189whether such law would be adopted in Harrison county was published in four consecutive issues of a weekly newspaper in said county; but that counting the day of the first publication to the day of election there was only twenty-three days notice. We have repeatedly held that the statute intends that there shall be twenty-eight days notice in order that there may be a valid election. It thus…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. Weber v. TuckerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Bean v. County CourtMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- State v. KaufmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
3Cited by9 opinions
- State Ex Rel. City of Berkeley v. HolmesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1949
- Guernsey v. McHaleyOregon Supreme Court · 1908
- Hill v. HartzellOregon Supreme Court · 1926
- State ex rel. v. MartinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
- State v. BrownMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.