CHAPTER II. LOCAL OPTION. LOCAL OPTION-FLORIDA-ALL STATUTES AUTHORIZING LICENSE SUSPENDED THEREBY. Where there has been an election under the local option article of the Florida constitution of 1885, and legislation in pursuance thereof, with the result adverse to the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines and beer in any county or election district in this state during the period of the operation of the result of such election, all statutes authorizing or licensing the sale of such liquors, wines and beer are suspended. Cason vs. State, Fla., 20 South, Rep. 547. LOCAL OPTION-GEORGIA-EXPRESS COMPANIES CANNOT DELIVER LIQUORS AT GENERAL OFFICE. An important case involving the right of express companies to deliver whisky in local option counties was tried in 1899, at Cartersville, Ga. The case is that of the Southern Express Company, an indictment against the company for delivering whisky shipped there at the office of the company, which was declared to be a public place. It is claimed that the company has no right under the law to deliver goods of this sort at its general office, but must deliver whiskies at the private residences of the consignees. Judge Fite directed the jury to bring in a verdict against the company, but he suspended sentence and the case will be taken before the Supreme Court. LOCAL OPTION-GEORGIA-POWER OF TOWN COUNCIL AND LEGISLATURE.— A liquor dealer named Sunden was arrested and fined by the Mayor of Oakland, Ga., for selling intoxicating liquors within the town. The ordinance under which he was found guilty reads as follows: "No person shall buy or keep any spirituous or intoxicating liquors within the corporate limits of this town with intent and purpose to sell the same. Any person violating this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined not less than $25 nor more than $100, or imprisoned not more than thirty days." Sunden was given the limit of the law. The town was chartered by act of the General Assembly, approved December 12, 1894. The charter contains this section: "Be it further enacted, that the sale of spirituous, vinous, malt and intoxicating liquors shall be forever prohibited within the limits of said corporation of Oakland City," etc. The case was taken to the Superior Court on certiorari, and on the hearing the Mayor's sentence was reversed and Sunden was released. The Court held: (1) The case of Bagley vs. the State, reported in the Southeastern Reporter, vol. 29, pp. 123, has decided that such legislation is unconstitutional. This covers the question and binds the Superior Court. (2) Since the passage of the local option act of 1885, and while it remains in force, the legislature cannot constitutionally pass an act prohibiting the sale of liquors within the corporate limits of a certain town or city, and the municipal authorities cannot accomplish the same result by a prohibitory ordiance. LOCAL OPTION-GEORGIA-FIVE-MILE LAW APPLIES ONLY TO SALES OUTSIDE INCORPORATED TOWNS, ETC. Prima facie a local statute which prohibits the sale of spirituous liquors within five miles of certain specified churches applies only to sales outside of the limits of incorporated towns, villages or cities. Hart vs. State, Ga., 15 S. E. Rep. 685. LOCAL OPTION-KENTUCKY-TIPPLING HOUSE. Persons cannot be prosecuted under the general law for the offense of keeping a tippling house in localities where either the general or a special local option law is in force, as persons who sell liquor violate that law, and if proceeded against at all it must be under that law. Wooten vs. Commonwealth, Superior Court, Kentucky, December, 1893. LOCAL OPTION-KENTUCKY-EFFECT CITY CHARTER. OF AMENDMENT OF The Court of Appeals for Kentucky has rendered the following opinions on "local option and repeal of statute" in the case of Tabor vs. Lander, etc., and Hayes vs. Commonwealth, being an appeal from Hancock Circuit Court: (1) Where the general local option law had been voted into operation in a civil district of which a city formed a part, an amendment to the city charter conferring for the first time authority on the city council to license taverns and coffee houses, with the privilege of retailing liquors in the city, repealed the local option law so far as the city was concerned. (2) The power to license and tax in such a case must mean an exclusive power, and, therefore, the general local option law cannot again be voted into operation in the city. But, even conceding that it can be, the vote must be taken in the town alone, and not in the civil district, the amendment to the charter having at least separated the city from the civil district as a political division. LOCAL OPTION-KENTUCKY-PETITIONS FOR ELECTION. Ky. St. § 2554, providing for local option elections on a written petition signed by voters of each precinct of the territory to be affected equal to 25 per cent of the votes cast in each of said precincts at the last preceding general election, is complied with when separate petitions are filed from every precinct in the territory to be affected, signed by over 25 per cent of the voters in such precincts, as above provided. Smith vs. Patton (Ky.), 45 S. W. Rep. 459. LOCAL OPTION-KENTUCKY-APPLIES ΤΟ DISTILLERS' LI CENSE. Ky. St. § 4203, requiring ten days' notice of an application for a license to sell spirituous liquors at retail, and providing that, if a majority of the legal voters in the neighborhood protest, the application shall not be granted, applies to applications by "distillers," the conditions of whose licenses are enumerated in section 4205. Commonwealth vs. Hawkins (Ky.), 32 S. W. Rep. 409. LOCAL OPTION-KENTUCKY-REPEAL OF LAW. Where the vote under the local option law was, in a certain district, against the sale of liquors, but while such law was in force the legislature amended the charter of a city within that district, authorizing the city council to thereafter grant licenses for retailing liquors in the city, the operation of the local option law, so far as concerned the city, was repealed. Tabor vs. Lander (Ky.), 27 S. W. Rep. 1056. LOCAL OPTION-MICHIGAN-POWER OF BOARD OF SUPER VISORS. Under act 207, laws 1889, known as the "local option law," the determination by the board of supervisors of the question as to whether or not a sufficient number of electors of a district had petitioned for a special election thereunder, and other preliminary questions, is final, and will not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Covert vs. Munson (Mich.), 53 N. W. Rep. 733. LOCAL OPTION-MICHIGAN-NOTICE, HOW PUBLISHED.— Under Pub. Acts 1889, No. 207, § 14, relating to local option, and requiring the clerk of the board of supervisors to publish the resolution of prohibition in a newspaper "to be designated by the board," the paper in which the resolution is to be published must be designated by the board adopting the resolution, though the county printing has already been let to a certain newspaper. Moran vs. Darby (Mich.), 56 N. W. Rep. 347. LOCAL OPTION-MICHIGAN-DRUGGISTS LIABLE UNDER.— A druggist who violates the restrictions imposed by law in selling liquors in a county where the local option law prevails should be prosecuted under the local option law, rather than under the general law, since the exception of druggists from the operation of the local option law (section 1) applies only to such as sell "in compliance with the general law" and not in violation of it. Bishop vs. Hillsdale Circuit Judge (Mich.), 53 N. W. Rep. 1093. LOCAL OPTION-MISSISSIPPI-RECORD MUST SHOW FACTS AS TO PETITIONERS. Under Code 1892, ch. 37, providing for an election, on petition to the supervisors, to determine whether liquors should be sold, the election is void where the supervisors' record fails to show affirmatively that the petitioners comprised one-third of the qualified electors. Lester vs. Miller (Miss.), 24 South, Rep. 193. LOCAL OPTION-MISSOURI-CONSTITUTIONALITY OF. Act April 5, 1887, known as the "Local Option Law," is not unconstitutional by reason of its failure to provide for publishing a notice of the special election within the limits of a city to be affected by the results of the vote, but which provides only for notice to be published in some paper "in the county." State vs. Dugan, Missouri. LOCAL OPTION-TENNESSEE-SIGNERS TAKE OFF THEIR NAMES. OF PETITION MAY Citizens of Monroe County, Tennessee, got up a petition for a local option election, and, after getting the requisite number of names, filed it with the board of supervisors. Afterwards a number of the signers took off their names, |