OCR Text |
Show i DBueoisrs Mode J As Defined Under the Provo Liquor Ordinance. Full Text of the Decision Rendered Ren-dered Thursday by Judge Noon. In the Case of Provo City vs. Dr. Hannberg for Illegally Ille-gally Selling Liquor. On Wednesday alternoon the attorneys attor-neys in the case of Provo city vs Dr. Hannberg, charged with selling liquor without a license, argued the matter before Justice Noon, before whom the case was tried. Authorities were cited in a voluminous manner. Justice Xoon took until Thursday morning to render ren-der his opinion. On. Thursday sioryiiig Judce 'Noon rendered the following decision: The Court in reviewing carefully the evidence finds that the defendant by his own testimony did sell complainant (Allen Thompson) one-half pint of brandy, which defendant said he sold for medical purposes, but which witness, wit-ness, Allen Thompson, denies. The evidence is contradictory on both sides. But be that as it may, there was no evidence produced to show that defendant de-fendant had any license to sell intoxicating intoxi-cating liquors, either wholesale or retail, re-tail, and there has not been proof or authority brought'in to this court to give the right to a physician to sell liquors li-quors by the pint to a patient or to any one for sickness, without first obtaining ob-taining a license. The defendant might have been ignorant of the law, acting upon a belief that he had that right as a physican. The business of a practicing physician in Provo city does not exclude him paying license if if he sells intoxicating liquors even to patients. The law was evidently carefully care-fully made to control those who sold or dealt in spirituous liquors. The City of Provo, by its City Council, passed a law on the27tk of May, ISS9, for the licensing and regulating the manufacture manufac-ture and sale of intoxicating liquors, which the court has no right to qu-s-tion. The authorities produced in support of thse law, by prosecution for the c ty, have been carefully examined by the court and they appear to fully support sup-port the law. The most pertinent of these authorities are the Laws of Utah, section 838, passed 1SSS; the Municipal Police iLaws, Ilorr & Bemis, page 270, section 78; Northwestern Reporter, State of Iowa vs Knowles, and the authorities au-thorities produced to the court of Kansas and Nebraska, all support the fact that a license must bo had to sell intoxicating liquors, and no physician appears to have the exclusive right to sell without a license and neither has a druggist. The defense claims that the Laws of Utah, of 1S7G, would allow a druggist to sell intoxicating liquors for medical purposes, there being no law against i,liut without. oubt this law has been superseded by the laws of 1SS8. The cities, in the regulation of the sale of intoxicating liquors, have evidently made use of those advantages extended, ex-tended, and Provo Cit made its ordinance or-dinance in accordance therewith, which the Justice's C Mirt of Provo city has no right to questi n. It can use its judgment in th- degree of offense of-fense committed, but if a violation of an ordinance has been clearly committed com-mitted it must follow that law as long as it remains a law. And this court believes it has no right whatever to construe an ordinan c according to its opinion. It would place a power in a Justice's Court that would work an evil to the citizens, w Inch no one man should have the power to de. When the law is plain ami in n i way ambiguous, ambig-uous, it should be strictly followed, as in the liquor ordinance of Provo city, which no doubt before it was readied was carefully considered, to-wit: Section 1, of an ordinance licensing and regulating tin- ma nr. factor and sale of intoxicates: liquors, passed Mav 27, 1SS9: "No prison shall manufacture, man-ufacture, barter, sell, .r otherwise dispose of any pi:i;uous, venous, malt, or other intox m'ing liquors, without first obtaining 1'iotn the City CVuncil of Provo city, a license theie-fore." theie-fore." The Court belirves he ordinance mans just whai ;l sa.-, and puts an end to any doubt :n tii's matter, as far as this court is concerned. And as the defendant himself adm t.s lie sold one-bfalf one-bfalf pint of brandy to complainant for medical purposes, i.ec uM not possibly have the right in Pr.-.j i:y, without first obtaining a li: eie. Neither does any medical doctor in I'r vo city have the right to sell int. . ating liquors without first obtaining a license so to do. And with the l.i. a.id the evidence before it the couit i.iust and does under un-der the laws of Pr vo city, licensing and regulating th manufacture and sale of intoxicating iq;i s,liud the defendant de-fendant guilty as charged in the complaint. The Court, in ro::d.-rin? . sentence, said he was convinced i;.at the defendant defend-ant had not wilful v viol .-tied the law, believing that he io b e;i laboring under the impressio i h ;i ; e had the right under the lawn T l'ruva city, as a druggist, to sell li.jv.'iv In view of these facts the Conn unit-red the defendant de-fendant to pay a tine of i'J). Dr. Hannbtrg t-x.k until Friday morning to decide wl-ih, r o appeal the c?Ke or satish tlif m.jnt. |