{ "id": 2529627, "name": "George T. Price v. City of Lincoln", "name_abbreviation": "Price v. City of Lincoln", "decision_date": "1906-11-27", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "254", "last_page": "257", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "130 Ill. App. 254" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "217 Ill. 471", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 3355637 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/217/0471-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 359, "char_count": 5211, "ocr_confidence": 0.464, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.08181905586001346 }, "sha256": "9f13a62152593c5f7703754fb3371650cdf8608510c78627363f7506176f5cd4", "simhash": "1:1c811fdfd53526c2", "word_count": 884 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:06:15.932076+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "George T. Price v. City of Lincoln." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Puterbaugh\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellant was, by a police magistrate of the City of Lincoln, adjudged to be guilty of a violation of the dram-shop ordinance of said city, and to pay a fine and costs. He was granted an appeal to the Circuit Court where a trial was had by the court without a jury upon a written stipulation as to the facts involved. The court found the defendant guilty as charged, assessed a fine of $20 and costs and entered judgment therefor, to reverse which defendant prosecutes this appeal.\nThe ordinance which he is charged, with having violated reads as follows:\n\u00a3 1 Section 2. Sale Without License \u2014 Penalty. That no person shall within said city, by himself, or another, either as principal, clerk or servant, sell, exchange or deliver, or otherwise dispose of, for money or gain, directly or indirectly, any intoxicating liquor of any kind in and less quantity than one gallon or in any quantity to be drank upon the premises, or in or upon any adjacent room, building, yard, premises, or any place of public resort, without having a license therefor, under a penalty of not less than twenty ($20) dollars for each and every* such offense.\u201d\nIt appears from the stipulation of facts that the City of Lincoln on May 1, 1905, issued to appellant a license to sell intoxicating liquors in less quantities than one gallon in a 1\u00a3lower room\u201d of tie building located at 120 North Chicago street in said city, for the period of six months from the date thereof. During the term of such license, on July 19, 1905, certain customers of appellant went into a small wine-room on the same floor with and adjacent to but not directly connected with the bar-room where his dram-shop was conducted, and by means of an electric bell summoned appellant, from whom they-ordered intoxicating- liquor which they paid for and drank in said wine-room. It is further stipulated that the \u201croom known as the bar-room is circumscribed by four brick walls; that no common door connects said bar-room with the wine-room; that the manner of ingress and egress to and from the bar-room to said wine-room is by two doors from said bar-room to a narrow hall-way opening from Chicago street and running alongside of said saloon or bar-room to the rear along by and past the wine-room.\u201d\nThe controlling- question presented for our determination is whether or not appellant\u2019s license which authorized him to sell liquor in \u201cthe lower room\u201d of the building described, conferred upon him the right to sell liquor in other rooms in said building, adjacent to such \u201clower room.\u201d Counsel for appellant contend that the question should be answered in the affirmative, and by their -propositions of law requested! the trial court to hold that under the license issued to him, appellant was authorized to sell liquor at any place in the lower floor of the building-described therein. The conclusion so requested would be warranted only upon the hypothesis that the words \u201clower room\u201d can reasonably be construed as to include not only the room designated but as well as all other rooms adjacent thereto. To adopt such construction would be to do violence to the plain, ordinary and unambiguous language used. Its effect would be to arbitrarily and 'without reason give to the words \u201clower room,\u201d a meaning much broader than was intended by the licensor. The city had discretionary power in granting the license to restrict the sales of liquor to any extent it desired. Malkan v. City, 217 Ill. 471. It saw fit to limit the sales to a particular room and doubtless had good and valid reasons for so doing. It is a well-known fact that it is necessary for municipal authorities to exercise a strict supervision over those to whom licenses to conduct dram-shops are granted, in the interest of public order and morals, and -it is obvious that this'can be better accomplished by restricting the exercise of the privileges granted to particular and well-defined localities. If appellant desired to sell liquor in rooms other than that mentioned in his license, he should have applied for a license sufficiently comprehensive in its terms to permit him to do so. The license to keep a saloon in the \u201clower room\u201d of the building did not cover all parts of such building. Black on Int. Liquors, sections 145-150. The sales made by appellant in the wine-room were manifestly unwarranted by his license and in violation of the ordinance in question. We. regard the remaining contentions of appellant as without merit. The\njudgment of the Circuit Court is accordingly affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Puterbaugh" } ], "attorneys": [ "Donald McCormick and Beach, Hodnett & Trapp, for appellant.", "John H. Beckers, City Attorney, and S. L. Wallace, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "George T. Price v. City of Lincoln.\n1. Dbam-shop\u2014license to conduct, construed. A license authorising the conduct of a dram-shop in a \u201clower room\u201d of a building does not confer the right to conduct a dram-shop in other rooms upon the lower floor of the building designated.\nAction commenced before justice of the peace. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Logan county; the Hon. Thomas M. Habbis, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1905.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed November 27, 1906.\nDonald McCormick and Beach, Hodnett & Trapp, for appellant.\nJohn H. Beckers, City Attorney, and S. L. Wallace, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0254-01", "first_page_order": 300, "last_page_order": 303 }