« ПретходнаНастави »
In charging the removal of baggage for the purpose of defrauding a hotel or boarding house keeper, it need not be alleged that such removal was with the intent to commit such fraud. State v. Engle, 156 Ind. 339.
7255. Mechanic's liens.
The mechanic's lien law is not subject to any constitutional objection. Barrett v. Millikan, 156 Ind. 510.
The preference liens that are given to persons for wages without the giving of notice as specified in the last clause of section 7255, Burns' R. S. 1901, is limited to the class of service mentioned and to the structures named in such clause. SulzerVogt Co. v. Rushville Co. 160 Ind. 202.
The preference given to mechanics and laborers, when the debtors are in failing circumstances without filing notice of liens, applies only to claims for wages and does not include claims for materials. National Co. v. Stranahan, 161 Ind. 602.
When mechanics and laborers are given liens against failing debtors without filing notices of such liens, such liens must be enforced within a year the same as other liens are required to be enforced. Smith v. Tate, 30 App. 367.
7258. Recording notice, fee.
Recorders are entitled to at least fifty cents for recording notices of mechanic's liens under the fee and salary act of 1895, such act repealing the prior statute on such subject. State v. Phillips, 157 Ind. 481.
7259. Enforcing lien.
Persons who are given preference liens without filing notices when debtors are in failing circumstances are required to enforce their liens within one year the same as other liens acquired by mechanics. Smith v. Tate, 30 App. 367.
If mortgagees are not made parties to a suit to foreclose a mechanic's lien commenced and judgment obtained within a year, such mortgagees may enjoin a sale of the property under the foreclosure decree after the expiration of the year. Martin v. Berry, 159 Ind. 566.
7262. Personal liability of owner.
If a sub-contractor serves notice on the owner of a building that he will hold him personally liable for the amount owing by the contractor to the sub-contractor, such owner will be liable to the sub-contractor for the amount owing to the contractor by such owner, or to the extent of the claim of the sub-contractor. Roberts v. Koss, 32 App. 510.
7268. Lien of tradesmen, enforcing.
Mill owners have a lien on lumber sawed by them for their charges, and may enforce such lien against any lumber remaining in their possession for any balance due for sawing a larger lot of lumber. Bierly v. Royse, 25 App. 202.
Section numbers to notes refer to Revised Statutes of 1901.
Sections omitted have not been construed since 1901.
7276. License, when required.
7278. License, notice, remonstrance. 7279. License, bond, appeal, effect. 7283a. License to sell, application, qualifications.
7283c. Room, arrangement, occupants prohibited, when.
7283d. Location of rooms, unobstructed view.
72831. Remonstrance, forms.
7283j. Sales by druggists, penalty.
7276. License, when required.
Druggists who seli medicines composed partly of intoxicating liquors are not liable for selling liquors without a license, although such sales are made without a prescription from a physician. Parker v. State, 31 App. 650.
License, notice, remonstrance.
If an applicant for a liquor license causes notice of his application to be published in a paper located outside of the township of his residence and place where he proposes to sell, and which has very little circulation in such township, and there are papers published and generally circulated in the township, such notice is in sufficient. Goodwine v. Flint, 28 App. 36.
The fact that at the time of giving notice of an intention to apply for a license to sell liquors the building mentioned in the notice has not been erected, will not defeat the application if the building and room described in the application is in existence when the license is issued. Moran v. Creagan, 27 App. 659.
Remonstrances against the granting of licenses to sell liquors may be signed by the attorney of the remonstrators. Cochell v. Reynolds, 156 Ind. 14; Ludwig v. Cory, 158 Ind. 582; Shaffer v. Stern, 160 Ind. 375; White v. Furguson, 29 App. 144; Fried v. Nelson, 30 App. 1.
If a person who obtains a license to retail liquors becomes a non-resident of the county in which the license is granted, he loses the right to sell under such license. State v. Dudley, 33 App. 640.
7279. License, bond, appeal, effect.
If an appeal is taken from an order granting a license to sell liquors, such appeal does not prevent the applicant from selling under the license from its date until the close of the next term of court at which such cause may be lawfully tried, but he
can not continue to sell after such time during the pendency of the appeal. State v. Sopher, 157 Ind. 360.
7283a. License to sell, application, qualifications.
If, at the time of issuing a license to sell liquors, there is in existence at the location described in the notice of application a room and building, as described in the application, the license can be issued, although the building had not been erected when the notice was published. Moran v. Creagan, 27 App. 659.
7283c. Room, arrangement, occupants, prohibited, when.
What constitutes a violation of the statute by a licensed liquor seller in permitting persons to be unlawfully in his saloon at times when it is unlawful to sell liquors. Atkinson v. State, 33 App. 8.
7283d. Location of rooms, unobstructed view.
Rooms in which liquors are sold under licenses in cities or towns must front on streets, and not on alleys, and the granting of a license to sell liquors in a particular room does not adjudicate that the room fronts on a street or highway. State v. Harrison, 162 Ind. 542.
Places in which licensed sellers may sell liquors must consist of one room on the ground floor, fronting a highway or street, and the view into such room must be unobstructed from the street or highway at times when it is unlawful to sell liquo Atkinson v. State, 33 App. S.
In charging the obstruction of view into a room where liquors are sold under license at times when sales can not be lawfully made, it must be alleged that the room was located and arranged as the statute requires. State v. Slentz, 27 App. 557.
When it is charged that a view into a room where liquors are sold under license was obstructed on Sunday, the particular Sunday and date must be stated. State v. Slentz, 27 App. 557.
[Acts 1905, p. 7. In force April 15, 1905.]
72831. Remonstrance-Forms.-9. If three days before any regular session of the board of commissioners of any county, a remonstrance in writing, signed by a majority of the legal voters of any township, or ward in any city situated in said county, shall be filed with the auditor of the county against the granting of a license to any applicant or against such granting to all applicants for the sale of spirituous, vinous, malt or other intoxicating liquors, under the law of the State of Indiana with the privilege of allowing the same to be drunk on the premises where sold within the limits of said township, or city ward, it shall be unlawful thereafter for such board of commssioners to grant license to any such applicant therefor during the period of two years from the date of filing of such remonstrance; or if such remonstrance shall be against all applicants then it shall be unlawful for said commissioners to grant a license to any applicant therefor during a period of two years from the date of the filing of such remonstrance against all applicants; if any such license should be granted by said board during said period, the same shall be null and void, and the holder thereof shall be liable for any sales of liquors made by him the same as if such sales were made without license, and such violator of the law shall be
subject to arrest and punishment as if no license had been issued. The number to constitute a majority of the voters herein referred to shall be determined by the greatest aggregate vote cast in said township or ward for candidates for any office at the last election preceding the filing of such remonstrance. Provided, however, That any remonstrance which is not directed personally against an individual, but which is directed against all applicants, shall be separate and distinct, shall contain the name of no individual, but shall be directed to the board of county commissioners directly against the issuing of any such license to any person during the said two years. And provided further, That the following forms of remonstrance shall be sufficient under the foregoing provisions of this section, viz.:
(a) Form of remonstrance against a particular person:
State of Indiana, county of Kosciusko, ss: To the honorable board of commissioners of said county:
We, the undersigned, legal voters in the township of Harrison (or third ward in the city of Warsaw) in said county and state, hereby respectfully represent that we are opposed to the granting of a license to John A. Brown, who has given notice of his intention to apply therefor, for the sale of intoxicating liquors in said township (or ward).
(b) Form of remonstrance against issuing any such license to any
State of Indiana, county of Grant, ss: To the honorable board of commissioners of said county:
We, the undersigned, legal voters in the township of Harrison (or third ward in the city of Marion), in the county and state aforesaid, do hereby respectfully represent that we are opposed to the traffic in intoxicating liquors and we hereby object to the granting of a license to any person for the sale of intoxicating liquors in said township (or ward).
This act amends section 7283i, Burns' R. S. 1901.
The statute providing that, if a majority of the voters of a township or ward remonstrate against the granting of a license to a person to sell liquors, that no license shall be granted to such person for two years, is constitutional. Wilcox v. Bryant, 156 Ind. 379; Boomershine v. Uline, 159 Ind. 500; Hoop v. Affleck, 162 Ind. 564.
When a remonstrance, signed by a majority of the legal voters of a township or ward, against the granting of a license to a person to sell liquors, is filed with the board of commissioners, such board has no power to grant such a license to such person within the next two years. Wilcox v. Bryant, 156 Ind. 379.
Remonstrances signed by a majority of the legal voters of a township or ward, against the granting of a license to a person to sell liquors, need not be filed at a session of the board of commissioners when the notice of an applicant states that he will apply for a license, but, if such a remonstrance is on file when an application for license is made, the license can not be granted. McLaughlin v. Wisler, 28 App. 61.
Voters can not confer upon an attorney power to sign their names to remonstrances against granting licenses to sell liquors to such persons as the attorney may in his discretion see fit. Cochell v. Reynolds, 156 Ind. 14.
Voters may authorize an attorney to sign their names to remonstrances against granting licenses to sell liquors to any and all applicants, without naming any appli
cant. Ludwig v. Cary, 158 Ind. 582; Ragle v. Mattox, 159 Ind. 584; Shaffer v. Stern, 160 Ind. 375; White v. Furguson, 29 App. 144; Fried v. Nelson, 30 App. 1.
It is not necessary that a remonstrance signed by a majority of the legal voters of a township or ward, against the granting of a license to sell liquors, shall state any cause for remonstrance. Boomershine v. Uline, 159 Ind. 500.
If a majority of the legal voters of a township sign a remonstrance against the granting of a license to sell liquors in a ward in a town in the township, the license can not be granted, although a majority of the voters of the ward did not sign the remonstrance. Shaffer v. Stern, 160 Ind. 375.
If an applicant for a license to sell liquors desires to sell at a place in a township outside of an incorporated city, all the legal voters of the township, no matter where they reside, must sign a remonstrance in order to defeat the application. Moran v. Creagan, 27 App. 659.
If a remonstrance against the granting of a license to sell liquors is filed on Friday next before the meeting of the county board on Monday, it is filed in time. Shaffer v. Stern, 160 Ind. 375.
7283j. Sales by druggists, penalty.
Druggists may sell medicines partly composed of intoxicating liquors without a prescription from a physician, and not be liable for selling liquors without a license. Parker v. State, 31 App. 650.
7285. Selling without license.
In charging the sale of liquors by retail without a license, to be drunk on the premises, it is not necessary to allege that the sale was made for gain. Stapf v. State, 33 App. 255.
7288. Liability on bond.
If a licensed liquor seller sells liquors to an intoxicated man, and he thereby becomes crazed and commits a crime for which he is imprisoned, his wife may sue such seller for loss of support. Homire v. Halfman, 156 Ind. 470.
If, by reason of the unlawful sales of liquors to a man, he becomes intoxicated, and such intoxication causes his death, his wife may sue on the bond of the liquor seller for damages because of loss of support. Nelson v. State, 32 App. 88.
If the death of a person is caused by the unlawful sale to him of intoxicating liquors, the administrator of his estate can not sue to recover damages on account thereof. Couchman v. Prather, 162 Ind. 250.
In actions against liquor sellers to recover damages because of unlawful sales, it is not necessary to show that the defendants sold all the liquors causing the injury complained of. Nelson v. State, 32 App. 88.
In an action by a wife to recover damages for unlawful sales of liquor to her husband, acts of the wife not connected with such sales can not be proven in mitigation of damages. Gough v. State, 32 App. 22.
Persons who are jointly engaged in the unlawful sales of liquors, and who share in the proceeds thereof, are each liable for the damages resulting to persons or property caused by such sales. Terre Haute Co. v. Newland, 33 App. 544.