LICENSE-INDIANA-NOT SUBJECT TO COLLATERAL ATTACK.— When, after proceedings before the board of commissioners to obtain a liquor license, an appeal is taken to the Circuit Court, and a judgment there rendered granting the license, such judgment, though possibly erroneous, is not void; and, until it is reversed, the right of the applicant to all the privileges of the license cannot be collaterally attacked, even by the state. Ludwig vs. State, Ind., 48 N. E. Rep., 390. LICENSE-INDIANA-REMONSTRANCE AGAINST LICENSE CAN BE THROUGH AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY.— Under Rev. St. 1894, § 7278 (Rev. St. 1881, § 5314), authorizing any voter of the township wherein an applicant for a license desires to retail intoxicating liquors to remonstrate in writing against the granting of the license to him on the ground of his immorality or other unfitness, the right of such voter or voters may be exercised through the agency of a duly authorized attorney, and the remonstrance cannot be rejected because the remonstrators' names were signed by such attorney. Castle vs. Bell, Indiana, 44 N. E. Rep 2. LICENSE-IOWA-CONSENT OWNER. OF ADJOINING PROPERTY A citizen purchased a piece of property adjoining a saloon in Creston, Iowa, and afterward petitioned the court to grant an injunction against the saloon, restraining the owners from conducting the same on the ground that they had not secured the consent of the new owner of the property. The District Court held that as the saloonman had secured the consent of the previous owner it was quite sufficient, and the injunction was denied. LICENSE-IOWA-NO REFUND OF MULCT TAXES. In the cases of F. M. Hubbell and A. Aborn and other property owners against Polk County, the Supreme Court of Iowa has decided that property is liable for $600 mulct tax each year if saloons are conducted in or on them for more than half of the year for which the tax is levied. In these cases property owners tried to secure a refund of the payments made for the last quarter of the year 1895. The District Court refunded the quarter of the $600, but the Supreme Court on appeal decides that the full year's tax must be paid, the business having been conducted more than half a year. Hubbell vs. Aborn, 73 N. W. Rep. 578. LICENSE-IOWA-RIGHT TO SELL. Under Acts 25th Gen. Assem., ch. 62, § 17, providing that after a written statement of the consent to the sale of liquor in towns having over 5,000 inhabitants, signed by a majority of the voters residing in the city, shall have been filed with the county auditor, the payment of a certain tax shall, on certain conditions, be a bar to a prosecution for selling liquor, the filing of such a statement by the auditor is not a judicial determination of its sufficiency, but is a mere ministerial act, and therefore is not conclusive or prima facie evidence, on a collateral attack, of the sufficiency of the statement. State vs. Ashert, Iowa, 63 N., W. Rep. 557. LICENSE-IOWA-SALE NOT LEGAL FOR PARTNER.— A permit to sell intoxicating liquors, to obtain which the applicant must, inter alia, prove that he has not violated the liquor law and is not addicted to drink, will not protect a partner of the permit holder. State vs. McConnell, Iowa, 57 N. W. Rep. 707. LICENSE-KENTUCKY-APPLICATION BY DISTILLER FOR LICENSE TO SELL LIQUOR-NOTICE.— First-The provisions of section 4203 of the Kentucky Statutes requiring notice of an application for license to sell liquor applies to applications by merchants, druggists or distillers, under section 4205, as well as to applications by other persons, and the case of Evans vs. Commonwealth, 95 Ky., 231, was not intended to hold otherwise. Second-By the provisions of section 4205 a druggist in his business as such may sell "in quantities less than a quart for medical purposes on the prescription of a regular practicing physician," and this he may do without a license and free from any of the requirements or provisions of section 4203. Commonwealth vs. Hawkins, Ky. Court of Appeals, 1895. LICENSE-KENTUCKY-SUNDAY SALE-NOT SALE WITHOUT LI CENSE. First-It appearing under an indictment for selling liquor without a license, that the defendant had a license but that the sale was made on a Sunday, it was error to instruct the jury that the license was no protection, as that authorized the defendant's conviction of another offense than that charged in the indictment. Second-The accusatory part of the indictment fixed the offense and the averment that the offense was committed by selling on Sunday was mere surplusage, and if the defendant had not shown the license the court could have procured a conviction if the proof had shown the sale to have been on any day within the year prior to the finding of the indictment. Baer vs. Commonwealth, Oct. 28, '91 Superior Court, Ky LICENSE-KENTUCKY-SALES BY PHYSICIAN.— On a prosecution of one for selling liquor after his li cense had been revoked, it was error to reject evidence offered by defendant tending to prove that he was a druggist, and the family physician of the person to whom the liquor was sold, and that he sold the liquor as an ingredient of a prescription put up by him at the instance of such person as a medicine, in good faith. Lindsay vs. Commonwealth, Ky., 35 S. W. Rep. 269. LICENSE-KENTUCKY-ISSUED TO FIRM, PROTECTS REMAINING PARTNER AFTER DISSOLUTION. When a license to retail liquors has been issued to a firm, and one of the partners has bought out the other, the license still protects the remaining partner in selling at the place and during the time for which it was issued. Commonwealth vs. James, Ky., 32 S. W. Rep. 219. LICENSE-LOUISIANA-PLANTER WHO SELLS ONLY TO EMPLOYES REQUIRES LICENSE.— A planter or farmer keeping a store on his plantation, and selling goods and liquors to his employes exclusively, falls under the terms of the law exacting a license from everyone "doing business of selling at retail.” Thibaut vs. Kearney, La., 12 South. Rep. 139. LICENSE-MARYLAND-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-VALIDITY. Act 1894, ch. 113, requiring traders in the city of Baltimore to take out separate licenses to carry on business in disconnected buildings, does not violate the bill of rights (article 15), providing that every person ought to contribute his proportion of taxes according to his actual worth in property, as a license tax is not a property tax, but a tax "for the good government and benefit of the community." Rohr vs. Gray, Md., 30 Atl. Rep. 632. LICENSE-MASSACHUSETTS-LAW LIMITING RETAIL LI The limitation of the number of licensed places within the territory of a town or city is a reasonable exercise of the police power, and therefore is not in conflict with the constitution of the commonwealth or the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States. Sup. Ct., Mass., Jan. 9, 1897. LICENSE-MICHIGAN-RIGHT OF ADMINISTRATRIX TO CONTINUE BUSINESS. Under Act No. 313, Pub. Acts, 1887, prohibiting an applicant from engaging in retailing intoxicating liquors until a bond, approved by the proper body, is filed with the county treasurer, and the tax paid, the right to carry on the business is in the nature of a personal license, and an adminis tratrix cannot continue a business established by her decedent under a payment of the tax by him. People vs. Sykes, Mich., 56 N. W. Rep. 12. LICENSE-MICHIGAN-RETAIL DEALERS-ALL WHO SELL BY THE DRINK.— Under a criminal prosecution for violating Pub. Acts 1887, No. 313, § 7, which provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of selling spirituous liquors without the payment of a tax, a conviction can be had for selling two glasses of whisky, even though defendant was the servant of one who had paid the tax for the sale of malt liquors, as by section 2 (3 How. Ann. St., § 2283, c. 5) all persons who sell any spirituous liquors by the drink are retail dealers. People vs. Metzer, Michigan, 54 N. W. Rep. 639. LICENSE-MICHIGAN-COUNTY TREASURER NO RIGHT TO RECEIPT FOR TAX BEFORE FILING BOND. Under the liquor tax law, which prohibits the applicant for a license from engaging in the saloon business until his bond is approved and filed with the county treasurer, such treasurer has no right to receive and receipt for such tax before the filing of the bond. Attorney-General vs. Wayne County Treasurer, Mich., 1892. LICENSE-MICHIGAN-TWO OR MORE BARS MAY OPERATE IN SAME HOUSE UNDER ONE LICENSE. The Supreme Court of Michigan ruled July 1, 1893, in brief that two or even a greater number of bars may be conducted for the sale of liquor under one license, provided they are in the same building and operated by the same person who occupies the entire premises. Courtright vs. Newaygo. LICENSE-MISSISSIPPI-PETITIONS. Code Miss., section 1103-providing that an applicant for a liquor license must file a petition signed by a majority of the voters; that it shall lie over one month for consideration, |