CITY OF DULUTH v. BEN F. EVANS

Minnesota Supreme Court1924-03-21No. No. 23,868

158 Minn. 450

Summary · law.co

Holding. The trial court's conviction was affirmed. The city ordinance was valid despite imposing lesser penalties than state law, as it cooperatively supplemented rather than conflicted with state liquor regulations, and the evidence was sufficient to support Evans's guilt.

Ben Evans was convicted in municipal court in Duluth of selling intoxicating liquor in violation of a city ordinance. He appealed to district court, which affirmed the conviction. Evans then appealed to the state supreme court, challenging both the sufficiency of the evidence and the validity of the ordinance itself.

On the evidence issue, the court found adequate support for conviction. A witness testified to purchasing liquor from Evans, and two police officers stated that Evans admitted making the sale. Although Evans disputed this testimony and presented evidence attacking the witness's credibility, such challenges go to weight and credibility rather than sufficiency, and the trial court's findings were properly supported.

On the ordinance's validity, Evans argued it was void because it mirrored state liquor law while imposing lesser penalties, thereby conflicting with state law. The court rejected this reasoning. A city ordinance addressing the same subject matter as state law need not impose identical penalties; differences in punishment are permissible when the ordinance cooperates with and supports the state regulatory scheme rather than undermining it. The court found Duluth's ordinance to be cooperative in nature, with any penalty differences justified by the need for efficient municipal court proceedings. The court also noted that an unrelated argument about property seizure and disposition was not properly before it since no seizure occurred in this case.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Sufficiency of evidence for conviction of illegal liquor sales
Validity of municipal ordinance that duplicates state law with lesser penalties
Whether city ordinance can conflict with state law by lowering regulatory standards

Procedural posture

Evans appealed to the state supreme court from the district court's affirmance of his municipal court conviction for violating a city liquor ordinance.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Wilson, C. J.

The defendant was convicted in the municipal court of the city of Duluth of the offense of selling intoxicating liquors in violation of city ordinance No. 1472 of the city of Duluth. Defendant made a motion for a new trial which was denied, and he appealed to the district court of St. Louis county. That court affirmed the order of the trial court, and from the order of the district court denying defendant’s motion for a new trial he has appealed to this court.

It is claimed that the judgment of the court is not justified by the evidence. It is sufficient to say that a witness testified that he bought a bottle of liquor, and two officers testified that thé defendant admitted having sold the bottle to the alleged purchaser. This testimony is denied and things are shown tending to discredit the principal witness, but these only go to the credibility and there is ample evidence, if true, and the trial court has found it to be true, to sustain the conclusion that the defendant was guilty of illegally selling liquor — an offense included in the complaint which was broad enough to cover a “blind tiger.”

Defendant also says that his conviction is wrongful, for the reason that he claims the ordinance under which he was convicted is void.

The.first ground given for this assertion is that the ordinance is an attempt to duplicate chapter 455, p. 537, Laws 1919, as amended, except that it provides lesser penalties than the state law, and is therefore inconsistent with the general law and is void. In this claim we cannot concur. We do recognize that, if a city should pass an ordinance regulating liquor traffic which would assume to lower the standard of regulation as provided by the state law, it would be inconsistent with the general law and void. Evans v. City of Redwood Falls, 103 Minn. 314, 115 N. W. 200. This ordinance and the state law are very much alike, and the one is made in apparent recognition and respect for and of the other. There is not a great difference in the penalties and such difference as exists is doubtless out of necessity so that the prosecutions may be expeditiously disposed of in the municipal court. The ordinance is co-operative and not antagonistic to the general law. Ordinances may be valid when they relate to the same matter as a state law, even though the punishment prescribed in both be not the same. State v. Harris, 50 Minn. 128, 52 N. W. 387, 531. Even , if the penalty be less, the ordinance may be, and doubtless is, an important adjunct in preserving the standard of regulation as moulded by the general law. Being of such character it is valid.

Evans v. City of Redwood Falls, supra; State v. City of Duluth, 134 Minn. 355, 159 N. W. 792, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 683; City of Virginia v. Erickson, 141 Minn. 21, 168 N. W. 821.

It is also argued that there is an inconsistent provision in reference to seizure and disposition of property used in the prohibited acts. It is sufficient to say that no seizure was had in this case and this question, like others not covered by record and briefs, is not before the court.

Order affirmed.