[Download] "State Ex Rel. Cheadle v. District Court" by Supreme Court of Montana ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State Ex Rel. Cheadle v. District Court
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 22, 1932
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 64 KB
Description
1. Criminal Law. Right of appeal. Statute which limits the right of appeal by the state should be strictly construed. 2. Criminal Law. Failure of proof รข€” Directing verdict of not guilty. Where there has been an utter failure of proof as to one or more essential elements of the crime charged, the trial court is justified in ordering the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. 3. Criminal Law. Advising jury, effect of. Where there is evidence tending to prove every element of offense, but where the trial court considers the evidence insufficient in weight, it may advise the jury to acquit the defendant, but the jury is not bound by such advice. 4. Criminal Law. Review of evidence by appellate court. Where trial court formally directed the jury to find a verdict of not Page 16 guilty on the theory that there was an utter failure of proof of some of the essential elements of the crime charged, it was the reviewing courts province to determine whether there was evidence to prove all the essential elements of the crime charged. 5. Intoxicating Liquors. Sale of beer and liquor subject to regulation. The selling of beer and liquor at retail is not an absolute right, but it is a business which the state, under its police power, may regulate and control by requiring that a license shall be obtained to engage in it and by prescribing how the business shall be conducted. 6. Criminal Law. Knowledge of the law, presumption. An applicant for a license to sell beer or liquor at retail is presumed to know the law and cannot complain of restrictions imposed by the law on the conduct of the business which he may deem a hardship, since he was aware of them in advance, and it is for him to arrange his business to comply with the law. 7. Intoxicating Liquors. Regulating law part of license. The law relating to liquor control is a part of the license to sell beer and liquor at retail. 8. Intoxicating Liquors. Effect of closing hour on restaurant operated in conjunction with liquor establishment. Under statute providing that licensed establishments where beer is sold at retail are required to be closed during certain hours on Sunday and providing that, however, a lawful establishment operating in conjunction therewith need not be closed, the latter clause does not modify or restrict the positive injunction that the licensed liquor dispensing establishment must be closed. 9. Statutes. Plain construction. In construing a statute, words of common use are to be taken in their natural, plain and obvious meaning. 10. Intoxicating Liquors. Words and phrases "closed". "Closed", in statute requiring saloons to be "closed" and the public to be "excluded" therefrom during certain Sunday hours, means to absolutely close the front, side and rear of that part of the room which is used for purpose of selling liquor, and "excluded" means the act of thrusting out or preventing admission of the public from such establishment by simply ordering the doors to be closed so that public may not enter. 11. Intoxicating Liquors. Violation of liquor laws. Where kitchen and restaurant or dining room are entirely separate from the barroom, with a connecting door, statute requiring saloons to be closed and the public to be excluded therefrom during certain Sunday hours but permitting a lawful business run in conjunction therewith to remain open is violated by keeping the barroom or retail liquor establishment open and allowing public to remain therein after the closing hour. 12. Intoxicating Liquors. Violation question for jury. Whether statute requiring saloons to be closed and the public to be excluded therefrom during certain Sunday hours, but providing, however, that a lawful business run in conjunction therewith may remain open, was violated by defendant using barroom for purpose of serving meals, where restaurant business was conducted in a room separate and apart from the barroom, was for the jury.