prohibit tippling-houses or dram-shops, the by-law cannot forbid all sales of intoxicating drinks, for whatever purposes, except mechanical and medicinal;' and the power to regulate cannot be exercised by entire suppression. But an ordinance is good which goes only a part way, not covering the entire ground authorized. And the authority to vend may be made conditional where the statute permits it to be absolute. The ordinance can provide only for the locality of the municipality; as, it will be ill if it forbids the sale of beer within three miles of the corporate limits. But the provisions are so diverse that, instead of discussing them further, we shall do best simply to refer to some of the adjudications." S., 88 Ga. 635, 15 S. E. R. 684; Smith v. Warrion, 99 Ala. 481; Bagwell v. Lawrenceville, 94 Ga. 654, 21 S. E. R. 903; Cunningham v. Guffin (Ga.), 33 S. E. R. 664; Strauss v. Waycross. 97 Ga. 475; Tatum v. S., 79 Ga. 308, 3 S. E. R. 907; Kiel v. Chicago, 176 Ill. 137; P. v. Swift, 60 Ill. Ap. 395; Martins v. P., 85 Ill. Ap. 66; Vinson v. Monticello, 118 Ind. 103, 19 N. E. R. 734; Cantul v. Sainer, 59 Iowa, 26, 12 N. W. R. 753; Clinton v. Gussendorf, 80 Iowa, 117, 45 N. W. R. 407; Champer v. Greencastle, 138 Ind. 339, 24 L. R. A. 768; In re Jackson, 55 Kan. 694, 41 Pac. R. 956; Brown v. Lutz, 36 Neb. 527, 54 N. W. R. 860; Winants v. Bayonne, 15 Vr. (N. J. L.) 114; Schleister v. Stokes (N. J. L.), 43 Ath. R. 571; Portland v. Schmidt, 13 Oreg. 17, 6 Pac. R. 221; Ex parte Sikes, 102 Ala. 173, 24 L. R. A. 774, 15 S. R. 522; Champer v. City, etc., 138 Ind. 339, 35 N. E. R. 14, 24 L. R. A. 768; S., Noble v. Cheyenne (Wyo.), 40 L. R. A. 710.] 1 Strauss v. Pontiac, 40 Ill. 301. 2 Tuck v. Waldron, 31 Ark. 462; [Ex parte Reynolds, 87 Ala. 138, 6 S. R. 335; Ex parte Sikes, 102 Ala. 173, 15 S. R. 522.] 3 Schwuchow v. Chicago, 68 Ill. 444; Piqua v. Zimmerlin, 35 Ohio St. 507. 4 Schwuchow v. Chicago, supra; Baldwin v. Smith, 82 Ill. 162; Hurber v. Baugh, 43 Iowa, 514; Ottumwa v. Schaub, 52 Iowa, 515. Compare Crim. Law, I, § 914. 5 Strauss v. Pontiac, supra. 6 Camp v. S., 27 Ala. 53; Byers v. Olney, 16 Ill. 35; Goddard v. Jacksonville, 15 Ill. 588; S. v. Clark, 8 Fost. (N. H.) 176, [61 Am. D. 611;] Heisembrittle v. City Council, 2 McMul. 233; S. v. Columbia, 6 Rich. 404; Aberdeen v. Saunderson, 8 Sm. & M. 663; Bogart v. New Albany, Smith (Ind.), 38; Clintonville v. Keeting, 4 Denio, 341; City Council v. Ahrens, 4 Strob. 241; Morris v. Rome, 10 Ga. 532; S. v. Hogan, 10 Fost. (N. H.) 268; Markle v. Akron, 14 Ohio, 586; Louisville v. Kean, 18 B. Monr. 9; S. v. Neeper, 3 Greene (Iowa), 337; Harris v. Livingston, 28 Ala. 577; St. Paul v. Troyer, 3 Minn. 291; Chastain v. Calhoun, 29 Ga. 333; Gardner v. S., 20 Ill. 430; Pekin v. Smelzel, 21 Ill. 464; Megowan v. Com., 2 Met. (Ky.) 3; Savannah v. Hussey, 21 Ga. 80; Brooklyn v. Toynbee, 31 Barb. 282; Thompson v. Mt. Vernon, 11 Ohio St. 688; Com. v. Locke, 114 Mass. 288; Dewar v. P., 40 Mich. 401, [29 Am. R. 545;]S. v. Brady, 41 Conn. 588; S. v. Pfeifer, 26 Minn. 175; S. v. Fleckenstein, 26 Minn. 177; Mount Pleasant v. Vansice, 43 Mich. 361, [38 Am. R. 193;] Douglasville v. Johns, 62 Ga. 423; Hetzer v. P., 4 Colo. 45: Glentz v. S., 38 Wis. 549; Winona v. Whipple, 24 Minn. 61; Kitson u Ann Local statutes,-enacted by the legislature, are sometimes made to govern this question in particular localities instead of municipal by-laws.2 This sort of statute may also, and it often does, render unlawful the sale of liquors within a specified distance of particular places, the protection whereof is deemed specially desirable.3 998. Constitutional regulations. In a few of the states the experiment has been tried of more or less regulating this subject by a special provision in the constitution.* Arbor, 26 Mich. 335; Ex parte Hurd, 49 Cal. 557; Ex parte Schmitker, 6 Neb. 108; Meyer v. S., 13 Vroom, 145; Gilham v. Wells, 64 Ga. 192; Osborne v. Mobile, 44 Ala. 493; Kniper v. Louisville, 7 Bush, 599; S. v. King, 37 Iowa, 462. 393, 47 N. W. R. 37; S. v. Wingfield, 115 Mo. 428; S. v. Graves, 121 N. C. 632, 28 S. E. R. 403; Eilenbecker v. Court, 134 U. S. 31.] 4 Langley v. Ergensinger, 3 Mich. 314; Prohibitory Amendment Cases, 24 Kan. 700; [Mugler v. Kansas, 123 1 Ante, SS 36, 42b, 104, 1126, 126; U.S. 623; Boran v. S.,38 Tex. Cr. R. 414, Crim. Law, I, § 1068. 28. v. Joiner, 81 N. C. 534; Dorman v. S., 34 Ala. 216; Hudgins v. S., 46 Ala. 208; Indianapolis v. Fairchild, 1 Ind. 315, Smith (Ind.), 122; Chevalier v. Com., 8 B. Monr. 379; Hill v. Decatur, 22 Ga. 203; Ambrose v. S., 6 Ind. 351; McRae v. Wessell, 6 Ire. 153; McCuen v. S., 19 Ark. 630; Levy v. S., 6 Ind. 281. See Parker v. Com., 6 Pa. St. 507, [47 Am. D. 480;] Rauch v. Com., 78 Pa. St. 490; S. v. Strauss, 49 Md. 288; [Com. v. King, 86 Ky. 436, 6 S. W. R. 124; S. v. Moore, 107 Mo. 78, 16 S. W. R. 937; S. v. Dugan, 110 Mo. 138, 19 S. W. R. 195; S. v. Searcy, 111 Mo. 236, 20 S. W. R. 186; S. v. Wingfield, 115 Mo. 428, 22 S. W. R. 363, Gordon v. S., 46 Ohio St. 607, 23 N. E. R. 63; S. v. Snow (N. C.), 23 S. E. R. 322; Sparks v. S. (Tex. Cr. R.), 45 S. W. R. 493; Savage v. Com., 84 Va. 619, 5 S. E. R. 565.] 3 Block v. S., 66 Ala. 493; Boyd v. Bryant, 35 Ark. 69, [37 Am. R. 6;] Blackwell v. S., 36 Ark. 178; Barnes v. S., 49 Ala. 342; Wilson v. S., 35 Ark. 414; Harney v. S., 8 Lea, 113; S. v. Hampton, 77 N. C. 526; De Bois v. S., 34 Ark. 381; Manis v. S., 3 Heisk. 315; [Feek v. Bloomingdale, 82 Mich. 40 S. W. R. 796; Shields v. S., 38 Tex. Cr. R. 252, 42 S. W. R. 398. The constitution of Ohio contains a provision in reference to liquor traffic which makes the decisions, generally speaking, stand in a class to themselves. The provision is as follows: "No license to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be granted in this state, but the general assembly may by law provide against the evils resulting therefrom;" in the light of which all of the following cases should be read: S. v. Sinks, 42 Ohio St. 345, 9 N. E. R. 672; Adler v. Whitbeck, 44 Ohio St. 539; Gordon v. S., 46 Ohio St. 607, 23 N. E. R. 63; Van Wert v. Brown, 47 Ohio St. 477, 25 N. E. R. 59; S. v. Rouch, 47 Ohio St. 478, 25 N. E. R. 59; Senior v. Rateman, 44 Ohio St. 661, 11 N. E. R. 321. The dispensary laws also call for special mention, and particularly as to South Carolina, in which state legislation was enacted in 1895; and upon the law in some respects being declared by the United States supreme court unconstitutional, it was amended, and as amended upheld. In the note to section 990, supra, the cases both state and federal are cited, and the III. THE LICENSE. § 999. Discretionary or not.-In the absence of special terms in the statute, and as our enactments on this subject are commonly framed, the license may be granted or withheld by the licensing power at its discretion. act of congress of 1890, known as the Wilson bill, and its relation to this and other state legislation, is referred to. In this connection the case of S., George v. City Council, etc. (S. C.), 26 L. R. A. 345, is cited as containing a very full discussion along the line indicated, and the briefs and case itself abound in citations of authority. Questions relating to pleadings, exceptive provisions as to druggists and physicians and the place of sale, have arisen under prohibition and localoption legislation, and, for convenience in grouping, the cases deciding these questions are here cited, being classified as above; and to these are added a fourth class, upon statutory construction. The cases relating to pleading are: Cost v. S., 96 Ala. 60, 11 S. R. 435; Chew v. S., 43 Ark. 153; Mazzia v. S., 51 Ark. 177, 10 S. W. R. 257; Baird v. S., 52 Ark. 326, 12 S. W. R. 566; Stringer v. S., 32 Fla. 238, 13 S. R. 450; Carson v. S., 37 Fla. 331; Butler v. S., 25 Fla. 347, 6 S. R. 433; Cook v. S., 25 Fla. 698, 6 S. R. 451; Com. v. Howe (Ky.), 32 S. W. R. 132; Com. v. Shelton (Ky.), 35 S. W. R. 128; S. v. Harper, 42 La. An. 312, 7 S. W. R. 446; S. v. Langdon, 31 Minn. 316, 17 N. W. R. 859; S. v. Emberton, 45 Mo. Ap. 56; Lowery v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 34 S. W. R. 956; Webster v. Com., 89 Va. 154, 15 S. E. R. 513; Fortner v. Duncan, 91 Ky. 55, 11 L. R. A. 188, 15 S. W. R. 55. Those relating to druggists and physicians are: Jones v. S., 68 Ala. 559; Flower v. S., 39 Ark. 209; P. v. Murphy, 93 Mich. 41, 52 N. W. R. 1042: Bishopp v. Lane, 94 Mich. 461, 53 N. W. R. 1093. Those relating to place of sale are: Pilgreen v. S., 71 And from its decision Ala. 368; Dubois v. S., 87 Ala. 101, 6 S. R. 381; Newman v. S., 88 Ala. 115, 6 S. R. 762; Brooks v. S., 105 Ala. 33; Berger v. S., 50 Ark. 20, 6 S. W. R. 15; Smith v. S., 55 Ark. 259, 18 S. W. R. 237; S. v. Houts, 36 Mo. Ap. 265; Northcott v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 34 S. W. R. 946; S. v. Flannegan, 38 W. Va. 53, 17 S. E. R. 792, 22 L. R. A. 430; Gipps Brewg. Co. v. De France, 91 Iowa, 108, 28 L R. A. 386. And those relating to construction of these statutes are: Ashurst v. S., 79 Ala. 276; Prestwood v. S., 88 Ala. 235, 7 S. R. 259; Love v. Porter, 93 Ala. 384, 9 S. R. 585; Long v. S., 103 Ala. 55, 15 S. R. 565; Menaugh v. Orlando (Fla.), 27 S. R. 34; Feek v. Bloomingdale, 82 Mich. 393, 47 N. W. R. 37, 10 L. R. A. 69; P. v. Ackerman, 80 Mich. 588, 45 N. W. R. 367; P. v. Rice, 103 Mich. 350, 61 N. W. R. 540; P. v. Wade, 101 Mich. 89, 59 N. W. R. 438; P. v. Barnes, 114 Mich. 213; Crabb v. S., 88 Ga. 584, 15 S. E. R. 455; Southern Exp. Co. v. S. (Ga.), 33 S. E. R. 641; Com. v. Currier (Mass.), 42 N. E. R. 96; Warrenburg v. McHugh, 122 Mo. 649, 27 S. W. R. 523; Rathbone v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 31 S. W. R. 189; Van Arsdale v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 34 S. W. R. 935; Keaton v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. Ap. 259, 38 S. W. R. 522; Pike v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 51 S. W. R. 17; Snearly v. S. (Tex. Cr. Ap.), 52 S. W. R. 547. 1 Ex parte Yeager, 11 Grat. 625; Leigh v. Westervelt, 2 Duer, 618; Reg. v. Bristol, 28 Eng. L. & Eq. 291, 24 Law J. (N. S.) M. C. 43, 1 Jur. (N. S.) 373; P. v. Norton, 7 Barb. 477; Attorney-General v. Guildford, 5 Ire. 315; Reg. v. Harris, 2 Ld. Raym. 1303; Rex v. Austin, 8 Mod. 309; Louisville there is no appeal;1 though, by force of common-law principles, ministerial officers corruptly refusing or granting licenses may be indicted therefor, as in other cases of corruption." Yet there are states wherein, by reason of special language in the statute, the officer must act whenever the grounds of action are furnished to him; and states in which an appeal. lies from the decision of those to whom the application is originally made. Of course, § 999a. Qualifications. If the statute requires specified qualifications in the licensee, the applicant must show that he possesses them. In principle, and as a deduction from such v. Kean, 18 B. Monr. 9; Raleigh v. Kane, 2 Jones (N. C.), 288; S. v. Holt County Court, 39 Mo. 521; Austin v. S., 10 Mo. 591; Ex parte Whitting ton, 34 Ark. 394; In re Mundy, 50 How. Pr. 359; [Smith's Appeal, 65 Conn. 111, 31 Atl. R. 529; S. v. Gray, 61 Conn. 39, 22 Atl. R. 675; Perkins v. Ledbetter, 68 Miss. 327, 8 S. R. 507; Sherlock v. Stuart, 96 Mich. 193, 55 N. W. R. 845, 21 L. R. A. 580; S. v. Excise Board, 16 N. Y. Supp. 798; P. v. Waters, 23 N. Y. Supp. 691; P. v. Bennett, 23 N. Y. Supp. 695; P. v. Freeman, 23 N. Y. Supp. 913; Watkins v. Excise Com'rs, 24 N. Y. Supp. 547; P., Ryan v. Com'rs, etc., 28 N. Y. Supp. 481; Re Thomas, 169 Pa. St. 111, 32 Atl. R. 100; Kelminski's License, 164 Pa. St. 231, 30 Atl. R. 301; Re Fitzpatrick. 143 Pa. St. 52, 24 Atl. R. 910.] 1 Coulterville v. Gillen, 72 Ill. 599; Van Baalen v. P., 40 Mich. 258; Toole's Appeal, 90 Pa. St. 376; French v. Noel, 22 Grat. 454. And see S. v. Hardy, 7 Neb. 377; Pierce v. Com., 10 Bush, 6. 2P. v. Norton, 7 Barb. 477; Rex v. Holland, 1 T. R. 692. And see Attorney-General v. Justices, 5 Ire. 315. 3 Crim. Law, I, § 459 et seq.; II, § 971 et seq. nalls, 12 Grat. 292; Reg. v. Sylvester, 4 S. v. The Justices, 15 Ga. 408; Dougherty v. Com., 14 B. Monr. 239; Miller v. Wade, 58 Ind. 91. See P. . Perry, 13 Barb. 206; Sights v. Yar 5 S. v. Tippecanoe, 45 Ind. 501; Keiser v. Lines, 57 Ind. 431; Ex parte Dunn, 14 Ind. 122; Drapert v. S., 14 Ind. 123; Miller v. Wade, supra; Murphy v. Monroe, 73 Ind. 483; Molihan v. S., 30 Ind. 266; Young v. S., 34 Ind. 46; Reg. v. Du Rutzen, 1 Q. B. D. 55; Reg. v. Sykes, 1 Q. B. D. 52; Ex parte Manghan, 1 Q. B. D. 49; [McCreary v. Rhodes, 63Mo. 308.] 6 Goodwin v. Smith, 72 Ind. 113, authority as we have,' the issuing of the license is an adjudication that the qualifications are possessed, the requisite notice has been given, and the like; rendering the license a protection to the seller so long as it is unrevoked, unless the statute provides otherwise.? § 1000. The license-ought to be in due form, yet not every departure from what would be strictly appropriate will render it void. A certificate that one is licensed is not a license; nor will a license by parol suffice where the statute requires it to be in writing." Nor yet will any license, issued without authority of law, avail the party. Doubtless the essential for malities differ with the varying terms of statutes. And there are, it seems, states wherein the mere order or vote of the licensing board constitutes a license, and the issuing of the paper which is termed the license is a mere non-essential form.? Doubtless an omission of the licensing board to make the proper record will not impair the validity of a license. Bond. Some of the statutes require the licensee to give bond to conduct his business according to law or pay the dam [37 Am. R. 144;] Leader v. Yell, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 584; McWilliams v. Phillips, 51 Miss. 196. And see Ex parte Laboyteaux, 65 Ind. 545; Reg. v. Du Rutzen, 1 Q. B. D. 55; Reg. v. Vine, Law R. 10 Q. B. 195; 13 Cox, C. C. 43; Grummon v. Holmes, 76 Ind. 585; Miller v. Wade, 58 Ind. 91; O'Rourke v. P., 5 Thomp. & C. 496, 3 Hun, 225; [Smith's Appeal, 65 Conn. 111, 31 Atl. R. 529; Botthelder v. Erb, 18 Vr. (N. J.) 92.] 1 Stevens v. Emson, 1 Ex. D. 100; Hornaday v. S., 43 Ind. 306; Martel v. East St. Louis, 94 Ill. 67; S. v. Brandon, 28 Ark. 410. And see Leader v. Yell, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 584. 2 Reg. v. Vine, Law R. 10 Q. B. 195; [S. v. Evans, 83 Mo. 319; Sherlock v. Stuart, 96 Mich. 193, 21 L. R. A. 580.] See S. v. Fisher, 33 Wis. 154, 159; S. v. Ludington, 33 Wis. 107; Spake v. P., 89 Ill. 617. 3 Ante, § 255; S. v. Shaw, 32 Me. 570; Pope v. S., 2 Swan (Tenn.), 611; Mur 9 phy v. Nolan, 126 Mass. 542; Com. v. Matthews, 129 Mass. 485; [Com. v. Cauley, 150 Mass. 272, 25 N. E. R. 909.] 4 Com. v. Spring, 19 Pick. 306. 5 Lawrence v. Gracy, 11 Johns. 179; S. v. Moore, 14 N. H. 451. 6 Com. v. Mueller, 81 Pa. St. 127; Spake v. P., 89 Ill. 617; [Handy v. P., 29 Ill. App. 99.] Ind. 106; S. v. But see Schlict And compare 7 Houser v. S., 18 White, 23 Ark. 275. v. S., 31 Ind. 246. Wiles v. S., 33 Ind. 206; S. v. Wilcox, 66 Ind. 557; Vannoy v. S., 64 Ind. 447. And see Brown v. S., 27 Tex. 335; 1 Bishop, Mar., Div. & S., § 483; Wright v. Lanckton, 19 Pick. 288. 8 Foster v. Dow, 29 Me. 442. 9 Providence v. Bligh, 10 R. L. 208: S. v. Ferguson, 72 Mo. 297; Whalin v. Macomb, 76 Ill. 49; Tripp v. Flanigan, 10 R. L. 128; S. v. Church, 4 W. Va. 745; Tripp v. Norton, 10 R. I. 125; Lightnerv. Com.,31 Pa. St.341; [Quintard v. Knodeller, 53 Conn. 485, 2 Atl. |