Butler v. State
Citations
- 25 Fla. 347
Syllabus
<p>1. Two systems of law which are entirely repugnant to each other cannot be in force in the same locality at the same time.</p> <p>2. Whenever the local option Article of the Constitution prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors, wines or beer is put in operation in uny county or any election district, it suspends, during the period of its operation therein, the provisions of all statutes authorizing or licensing the sale of intox eating liquors, either spirituous, vinous or matl, in such county or district.</p> <p>3. Where two counts of an indictment charge a violation of a system of law which authorizes the sale of certain liquors if a license has been obtained in a manner prescribed by it, and the other count charges the violation of a system which prohibits any sale of such liquors in a part of the territory covered by the allegations of the former counts, the two sets of counts are irreconcilably repugnant, and the indictment insufficient in law. It cannot be known upon which system the State intends to rely as being in force in the territory covered by the third count.</p> <p>4. Where the counts of an indictment are based, some on one system of law and the other on another system, which systems cannot be in operation at the same time in the same territory, and the verdict is “guilty as charged in the indictment,” and the sentence is of a character authorized in the case of a lawful conviction under either system, the verdict and sentence will be set aside. It cannot be known upon what law the verdict and sentence are founded.</p> <p>5. Neither the local option Article of the Constitution, nor the statute enforcing the same, prohibit the sale of liquors, wine or beer that is not intoxicating.</p> <p>6. An indictment for selling liquor, wine or beer in a county or election district in which the local option Article of the Constitution is in force, must allege that the liquor, wine or beer charged to have been sold was intoxicating, unless it names a specif
Judges: Raney
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
20 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Fine v. MoranSupreme Court of Florida· 1917-12-06· cited 78×
- Ex Parte PrichaSupreme Court of Florida· 1915-11-04· cited 47×
- Mernaugh v. City of OrlandoSupreme Court of Florida· 1899-06-15· cited 37×
- In re O'BrienMontana Supreme Court· 1904-02-09· cited 31×
- Ex parte TheisenSupreme Court of Florida· 1892-06-15· cited 20×
- Caldwell v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1901-06-15· cited 11×
- Washington v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1906-01-15· cited 10×
- State ex rel. Mira v. SmithSupreme Court of Florida· 1890-06-15· cited 9×
- Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1898-05-25· cited 9×
- Craig v. RenakerCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1923-12-21· cited 7×
- Strickland v. KnightSupreme Court of Florida· 1904-01-15· cited 6×
- Stringer v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1893-06-15· cited 5×
- Cason v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1896-01-15· cited 5×
- Nussbaumer v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1907-06-15· cited 5×
- Barton v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1901-06-15· cited 3×
- State v. WeylandMissouri Court of Appeals· 1907-12-02· cited 3×
- State v. LabordeSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1907-05-13· cited 3×
- Bonacker v. State ex rel. McFarlaneSupreme Court of Florida· 1900-06-15· cited 2×
- People v. MillerSupreme Court of Colorado· 1912-09-15· cited 2×
- City of Live Oak v. JacksonSupreme Court of Florida· 1913-11-25
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.