INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
1. The local-option law does not prohibit the individual use of in-
toxicating liquors or prevent the decent exercise of hospital-
ity of the host towards guests in his home; but it is intended
to prohibit all traffic in liquors. People v. Slater, 156.
2. Whether or not the act of respondent, who permitted a friend
to drink from a bottle of whisky in his room, without express
invitation, was an honest act of hospitality to a guest, was a
question of fact for the jury, under evidence from which
different inferences might properly be drawn. Id.
3. Under the local-option law (2 Comp. Laws, § 5412 et seq.; Act
No. 207, Pub. Acts 1889, as amended by Act No. 183, Pub.
Acts 1899), a sale of intoxicating liquors by a druggist to a
person in the habit of becoming intoxicated is unlawful, al-
though the latter presents the prescription of a physician and
the druggist acts in good faith. 2 Comp. Laws, §§ 5381, 5391.
People v. Sharrar, 267.
4. Good faith being immaterial, evidence of it, such as the fact
that a physician's prescription was presented by the pur-
chaser, is immaterial. Id.
5. The statute was intended to forbid the sale of liquor by drug-
gists to certain persons, even for medicinal purposes. Id.
268.
6. Whether a particular mixture containing alcohol is a medici-
nal compound and unfit for use except in medicinal doses, is
generally a question of fact. Id.
7. But a mixture of 10 grains of quinine and 8 ounces of whisky
is, as a matter of law, an intoxicating liquor. Id.
•
8. Testimony to the effect that no reasonable person would drink
it as a beverage or drink sufficient of it to become intoxicated
was not admissible. Id.
9. Act No. 183, Pub. Acts 1899, requires the imposition of both
fine and imprisonment upon persons convicted of violating
its provisions. Id.
10. Petitioners for the submission to an election of the question
of prohibition under the local-option law may not withdraw
their names from petitions after copies have been posted.
2 Comp. Laws, SS 5414-5417; Act No. 183, Pub. Acts 1899.
Lewis v. Board of Sup'rs of Montmorency Co., 595.
11. The designation either of every newspaper in the county or of
a paper named and every other newspaper, was a sufficient
designation of the paper in which to publish the resolution of
the board of supervisors declaring the adoption of prohibition
in the county, under Act No. 207, Pub. Acts 1889 (2 Comp.
Laws, § 5412 et seq.). People v. Fisch, 680.
12. Evidence that the clerk of the board received the affidavit of
publication and on May 2d spread it on the record by past-
ing the same in the record, and certifying the date thereon,
shows a sufficient compliance with the statute requiring
him to spread it on the record. Id. 681.
INTOXICATING LIQUORS-Continued.
13. That the certificate of the clerk merely gives the date of affix-
ing the affidavit instead of the date of filing, does not invali-
date the record where it appeared that the same was not in
his office on the preceding day. Id.
See CRIMINAL LAW (5, 7, 12–17); DAMAGES (11-15, 17); RAIL-
ROADS (2).
INTOXICATION-See EVIDENCE (8); RAILROADS (2).
INVESTMENTS-See TRUSTS (2, 3, 7).
IRREGULARITIES See CRIMINAL LAW (8).
ISSUES FRAMED See Mandamus (9).
JOINDER OF PLAINTIFFS-See PARTIES (1).
JOINT ACTION-See TENANCY IN COMMON (2).
JOINT PURCHASE-See TAXATION (11).
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
Under a by-law of a partnership association providing that its
members should be bound by the articles of association, by-
laws and its rules and regulations, a stockholder who per-
formed work for the association, and had received no pay
therefor, was not barred from maintaining an action after
two years, notwithstanding the adoption of a resolution by
the stockholders deferring payment for work, the money to
be used in developing the corporate property. McCarty v.
Caledonia Coal Co., 692.
JUDGES-See CRIMINAL Law (6).
JUDGMENT.
1. The judgment of the Supreme Court, in a case involving the
mental competency of deceased to execute a will, and alleged
undue influence of defendant in securing its execution (In re
Shepard's Estate, 161 Mich. 441 [126 N. W. 640]), is not res
judicata of the question whether valid gifts were made by
testator to his sons of securities claimed by defendant to
have been transferred as a revocable, testamentary disposi-
tion. Shepard v. Shepard, 183.
2. The correction of a record of judgment, entered on plaintiff's
consent to withdraw a juror, the record showing erroneously
that plaintiff discontinued the cause, may be made on writ
of error, which is the proper remedy to review a final judg.
ment, and mandamus will not lie to compel such correction.
Meyering v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 604.
See APPEAL AND ERROR (6, 10); CRIMINAL LAW (9); MAN-
DAMUS (1, 2).
JUDICIAL NOTICE-See EVIDENCE (5, 6); MINES AND MINING.
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS-See LIBEL AND SLANDER (1).
JURISDICTION - See EMINENT DOMAIN (2); EQUITY (2); EXECU-
TORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (3); JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (5).
JUSTICES OF THE PEACE.
1. A discharge in bankruptcy of the principal, who has executed
an appeal bond in attachment proceedings commenced in
justice's court, and who files a petition in bankruptcy, after
taking his appeal from the judgment of the inferior court,
does not discharge the surety on the bond, where the bond
provides that the obligation shall be void if the appellant
shall prosecute his appeal with all due diligence, etc., and
pay the judgment and costs which may be rendered against
him, etc. Brown & Brown Coal Co. v. Antezak, 110.
2. On certiorari from the circuit court to a justice of the peace,
an amended return, filed by the justice after making his orig-
inal return and after the cause had been submitted in the
circuit, without any order of said court, which did not, so far
as the record showed, consider the amendment, is a nullity.
Nelson v. Hillen, 507.
3. The objection that the record does not show service of the writ
of certiorari on the justice within the required time, without
taking into consideration the amended return, will not be
considered, in the absence of a motion to dismiss the writ,
raising the point in the court below and giving an opportu-
nity to order a further return. Id.
4. Filing a special appearance by ending the same by registered
mail, with a motion to dismiss and an affidavit of defendant's
residence in another county, is proper practice to raise the
objection that defendant was entitled to a short summons,
and that service of a long summons was defective. Id. 508.
5. And the cause should have been dismissed on certiorari when
the justice's return showed that plaintiff knew that defend.
ant was a nonresident of the county. Id.
See LIBEL AND SLANDER (1, 2, 5).
LACHES.
Delay of over 16 years after the dissolution of a copartnership
bars the claim of an equitable interest in real property bought
by and in the name of a deceased partner, who, before his
death, transferred it to himself and wife as tenants by the
entirety. Abbott v. Jones, 598.
See DAMAGES (3); TENANCY IN COMMON (11).
LAND CONTRACTS-See FORECLOSURE (1); HOMESTEADS (1);
MECHANICS' LIENS (2); MORTGAGES (1, 2); SPECIFIC PERFORM-
ANCE.
LANDLORD AND TENANT-See MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (13);
TAXATION (9).
LEGACIES-See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS (2, 4); TRUSTS
(1, 3).
LESSEE-See TAXATION (8, 9).
LIBEL AND SLANDER.
1. Pertinent statements contained in a petition addressed to an
examining magistrate, charged with the duty of investigat-
ing the acts complained of, are privileged. Flynn v. Bo-
glarsky, 513.
2. And a petition charging plaintiff and his wife with disorderly
conduct and with disturbing the peace of defendants' neigh-
borhood, presents matter cognizable by a justice of the peace.
Id.
3. But the privileged character of the writing may be lost by ex-
cessive publication, or by general circulation among the peo-
ple of a community. Id.
4. Privilege does not extend to false publications made to persons
who have no interest in the subject-matter. Id.
5. A petition to be presented to the justice, charging plaintiff and
his wife with disorderly conduct, and with being disturbers
of the peace and a nuisance to the neighborhood, was of a
libelous nature, since it tended to hold plaintiff up to con-
tempt and ridicule of the community. Id.
6. It should have been left to the jury to determine whether or
not defendants gave to the paper unnecessary notoriety by
its circulation about the neighborhood and publication in the
daily press, and also whether or not the defendants were act-
ing maliciously. Id.
LICENSES-See CRIMINAL LAW (15).
LIENS-See INJUNCTION (3); MECHANICS' LIENS.
LIFE ESTATES-See DEEDS (3); EVIDENCE (7).
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.
1. The statute of limitations bars an action of assumpsit for
money loaned on interest, in separate items, of which the
last was advanced more than seven years before any demand
was made; the transaction amounting to a loan payable with-
in a reasonable time after demand. Volli v. Wirth, 21.
2. An action for seduction under a promise of marriage is barred,
unless commenced within three years, by Act No. 155, Pub.
Acts 1899, relating to actions for personal injuries. May v.
Wilson, 26.
See APPEAL AND ERROR (2); JOINT STOCK COMPANIES, WORDS
AND PHRASES.
LOCAL OPTION LAW-
ING LIQUORS (1-12).
LIMITATION OF INDEBTEDNESS-See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
(6, 7).
See CRIMINAL LAW (12-15); INTOXICAT-
LOGS AND LOGGING-See REPLEVIN; Taxation (8, 9).
LUMBERING-See CORPORATIONS.
MALICE-See ABUSE OF PROCESS (2).
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION-See ABUSE OF PROCESS.
MANDAMUS.
1. A finding of the circuit court, on certiorari, for the purpose of
reviewing proceedings to lay out a highway, that no error
was shown that would require a reversal of the action of the
defendant highway commissioner, constitutes a final judg-
ment, reviewable on error or certiorari in the Supreme Court.
Hartz v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 35.
2. Mandamus is not the proper remedy to revise a final judgment
on matters of record, which may be returned and examined
on certiorari. Id.
3. Mandamus does not lie where another adequate remedy exists.
Id. 231.
4. While mandamus does not ordinarily restrain action, a func-
tion of the writ of injunction, in view of the prior rulings of
this court (Elliott v. City of Detroit, 121 Mich. 611 [84 N.
W. 820]), mandamus will issue to prevent the holding of a
special election to amend the charter of the city of Detroit,
so as to authorize the acquisition and construction of street
railway lines; but the opinion in such case is overruled.
Attorney General, ex rel. Hudson, v. Common Council of
City of Detroit, 370.
5. Mandamus is not the proper remedy to restrain the State board
of agriculture from an alleged misapplication of the funds of
the Michigan agricultural college. Per MOORE, HOOKER,
BROOKE, STONE, and BIRD, JJ. Bauer v. State Board of Ag-
riculture, 415.
6. The denial by a trial court of defendant's motion for a more
specific bill of particulars is reviewable by writ of error, not
by mandamus; since the former remedy is adequate. Olds
Motor Works v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 470.
7. A motion to dismiss proceedings in mandamus for failure to
comply with Supreme Court Rule 56, requiring the printing
of material portions of the case, will be granted where re-
lators have omitted from the printed record material parts of
the respondent's return. Haney v. Allegan Circuit Judge,
581.
8. In mandamus to compel a county board of supervisors to sub-
mit the question of prohibition to an election, the answer of
respondent board contradicting its own record and proceed-
ings may not be taken as true. Lewis v. Board of Sup'rs of
Montmorency Co., 595.
9. No issue need be framed upon respondent's attempt to contra-
dict its own record and proceedings. Id.
See APPEAL AND ERROR (10, 19); ELECTIONS (2); JUDGMENT
(2); MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (3, 4).
MARRIED WOMEN-See EQUITY (8); HUSBAND AND Wife (6, 7,
14, 15).
|