J. D. CRABB, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for selling liquor without a license. The court held that selling liquor on Sunday, even by a licensed vendor, constitutes selling liquor without a license as defined by statute.
Yes, the court held that selling liquor on Sunday by a licensed vendor is considered selling liquor without a license, as the license does not authorize Sunday sales.
“A license to sell liquor does not allow the holder to sell liquor on Sunday.”
Establishes the core limitation on the license that was violated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ. D. Crabb, who held a license to sell intoxicating liquors, was convicted of selling liquor without a license. The sale in question occurred on a Su…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Cockrell, J.
Under an indictment for selling liquor without a license, J. D. Crabb was convicted upon proof that while having a license he sold intoxicating liquors on Sunday. The form of the indictment as against the objections here urged has been sustained by this court in the cases cited in Brass v. State, 45 Fla. 1, 34 South. Rep. 307, and need not be further considered.
The main contention of the plaintiff in error is, as we understand it, that the sale of liquors on Sunday and the sale of liquors generally without a license are separate and independent crimes, requiring separate and independent or different indictments. Such contention is untenable. A license to sell liquor does not allow the holder to sell liquor on Sunday. The act (chap. 4322, sec. 9, laws of 1895) expressly provides that the license shall not authorize the holder to sell liquors on Sunday, and declares “if the holder sells on Sunday he shall be deemed guilty of selling liquor without license,” thus making the two acts one offense; not that the act of selling on Sunday shall be punished as another act of selling without a license. There is no incongruity in such legislation. It is entirely competent for the legislature to impose such restrictions or limitations upon its license to sell intoxicating liquors and to say in effect that when one attempts to go outside these restrictions or limitations the privilege shall not avail him, and that he shall be deemed guilty of selling without a license. The licensee is held to know the limits placed by the law upon the license and the penalties to be inflicted for the violation of those limits.
We may add that the day of the month on which the indictment alleged the sale to have taken place is shown by the calendar to have been Sunday.
The above discussion disposes of all the assignments of error that merit discussion, and the judgment must be affirmed.
PIocicer, Shackleford and Carter, JJ., concur. Taylor, C. J., absent on account of sickness.
Whitfield, J.,. disqualified, took no part in the consideration of this matter.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fine v. Moran, 74 Fla. 417 (Fla. 1917)…se selling without a license where their sale is permitted is not unconstitutional as embracing more than one subject. See Brass v. State, 45 Fla. 1, 34 South. Rep. 307; Caesar v. State, 50 Fla. 1, 39 South. Rep. 470, 7 Ann. Cas. 45; Crabb v. State, 47 Fla. 24, 36 South. Rep. 169. In the case of State ex rel. Lamar v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., supra, it was held that an act prescribing the powers of the Board of Railroad Commisisoners was not invalid for the reason that the act embraced more than one sub…
-
Ex parte Adolph Pricha, 70 Fla. 265 (Fla. 1915)…it and suppress the traffic in intoxicating liquors. Since the adoption of this Article the Legislature from time to time has enacted laws regulating and restricting such traffic, and again and again we have upheld such statutes. See Crabb v. State, 47 Fla. 24, 36 South. Rep. 169; Schiller v. State, 49 Fla. 25, 38 South. Rep. 706; Ex Parte Theisen, 30 Fla. 529, 11 South. Rep. 901, 32 Amer. St. Rep. 36; Mernaugh v. City of Orlando, 41 Fla. 433, 27 South. Rep. 34; Howland v. State, 56 Fla. 422, 47 South. Re…
-
Ladson v. State, 56 Fla. 54 (Fla. 1908)…t 'is fatally defective for the same reason. Unfortunately for the defendant, his contention has already been decided adversely to him by this court in Brass v. State, 45 Fla. 1, 34 South. Rep. 307, which was followed and approved in Crabb v. State, 47 Fla. 24, 36 South. Rep. 169. See also Nussbaumer v. State, 54 Fla. 87, text 91, 44 South. Rep. 712, text 714. It is unnecessary to repeat what'was there said. As this disposes of the only question presented to us for consideration, the judgment must be aff…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brass v. State, 45 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1903)