Show LIQUOR CAS CASES E S BEATEN The Supreme Court ourt Hands Down Sweeping Decisions in Two Opinions ORDINANCES NULL SINCE MAY 9 1911 Pro Prosecutions Secured Since Then Will WiIl Not Hold Holdon on Appeals Iu Iii two sweeping decisions handed down by the state supreme court today it is iz held helCl that all aU ordinances of or counties coun COUn- ties cities and towns of the state por par taming to the liquor traffic in effect May 9 0 9 1911 arc aro null and void voids and all aU prosecutions brought under such ordinances nances ances that thai time cannot be sustained sus tallied In in tho thio higher court The opinions l hold bold old that the state liquor law which h became effective May MayD 9 0 D 1011 repeals auy any and all aU ordinances on tho the liquor traffic then in ill force rho The dispose c of tho question as ns to a city or town au cau regulate its Us own liquor traffic or enforce its ita own ov prohibition of the liquor traffic b by new MY ordinances or b by to their ro respective count county attorneys for br pro prosecution u under the tate state law Jaw in tho the f following language e The Thc question of th the tho power o of tho cities and tows towns of C this s state te to prose prose- cuto offenders under tho act act tor or to bat 1 bat extent il iC a. a all i.-all all such cities and nd towns mav may paM pa ordinances c pr prohibiting or rc ns tho c in intoxicating liquors and aud violators there there- or is s no not now before u us and we 1 cypress cy ex press prese rl ilo opinion with i regard gard there t I Two Convictions Annulled The 1130 in question were wert h handed n cd town down in the c cases cales es of John Lindsay linday of 1 Pleasant Gr Theodore Nicholas nt Grove t and of American Fork Jork both of whom 1 were ro prosecuted and nd convicted by br their re- re towns of hasin having sold oId liquor ha during u int the latter part of 0 of April 1911 contrary to to- law Jaw Both cas casos cae were appealed and tried in jn tho the district court at Provo In both ca cases cace tho district t judge jurl o instructed l the jury Jury that tho the prohibition ordinances un un- dor 1 ir which the the- themen men w re and prosecuted were wro NerO subsisting J laws laws' anti and andin antin in n full fun force and effect r r Attorneys for the defense defonso in both to-tb instances except nd and conton contended ed that the tate state law repealed d the ordinances ordinance and that in consequence could be maintained under them Tho The court opinions unit unit-tain the contentions o of tho the defense defenso and band or or- the tho prosecutions d inis ed d. d The main nain opinion u is written in the Lind Lindsay a I uSo CUSo and ie js referred rJ to to o again in itt tho the Nicholas sc Chief Justice T J T T Frick wrote the opinions which were concurred in by bv Justices rusti es D. D N. N and W. W M. M M Me- Me Jt Carty ar I |