People v. Congdon
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Hooker, J.
The impression seems to exist in the rminds of some of the profession that one who professes to *134 keep a drug store, giving a bond as a druggist, may, to all intents and purposes, keep a saloon, or habitually sell liquor as a beverage, without being liable, under the local option act or general liquor law for keeping a place where intoxicating liquor is sold as a beverage unlawfully. This-is a misapprehension, as we have repeatedly shown by decided cases. Anderson v. Van Buren Circuit Judge, 130 Mich. 697 ( 90 N. W. 692 ); People v. Remus, 135 Mich. 629 ( 98 N. W. 397 ); People v. Robinson, 135 Mich. 511 ( 98 N. W. 12 ); People v. Shuler, 136 Mich. 161 ( 98 N. W. 986 ).
We know of no case that holds that, where one is charged with the statutory offense of keeping a place where intoxicating liquors are sold as a beverage, the prosecutor is obliged to furnish a bill of particulars of the testimony upon which he will rely to prove the charge. See People v. Remus, supra; People v. McKinney, 10 Mich. 54, 92 .
We think it unnecessary to allude to other questions, all of which are covered by our decisions.
The judgment is affirmed.
The other Justices concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.