Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/31

 Even if part of the license law of 1879 is repealed by the Constitution part of it remains in force.

Until some act is passed pursuant to article 20, of the Constitution, the license laws remain in force; citing Allbyer v. State, 10 O. St. 588; Cooley’s Const. Lim. 76; Black on Const. Prohibition 181, and many other cases.

George F. Goodwin, Attorney General, and Jesse A. Frye, states attorney for Stutsman county, also for the respondent, argued: Article 20 of the Constitution is in full force and effect: §§ 11 and 20 of the schedule. That article is a complete law and is self-executing: Cooley Const. Lim. 220; Cooley Const. Lim. 99 to 103.

Section 2 of the Schedule continued in force that part of the license laws fixing penalties; citing Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 239; State ex rel., Hunt v. Meadows, 1 Kan. 90; Franklin v. Westfall, 27 Kan. 614; State v. Wilcox, 19 Am. Rep. 536; Prohibitory Amendment Cases, supra.

Even if article 20 repeals the whole system of license law, still said article makes the sale of such liquors a crime, a misdemeanor, and such crime is punishable under § 6213 of the Compiled Laws.

On the 22d day of January, 1890, the relator, Frank Ohlquist, applied to this court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was unlawfully restrained of his liberty by James K. Swan, sheriff of Grand Forks county. The petition states that the relator was duly arrested on January 21, 1890, upon a warrant issued by a justice of the peace of Grand Forks county, upon a complaint charging the relator with having, on the 10th day of January, 1890, sold intoxicating liquors in said county, in quantities less than five gallons, without having first obtained a license and given a bond therefor, as provided in § 1, c. 26, Laws Dak. 1879; that upon the hearing before said justice the relator was duly held to appear before the district court of said county, and admitted to bail for such appearance in the sum of $500. The relator, failing to give such bail, was by such justice duly committed to the custody of the respondent, as sheriff of said county. Relator, in his petition, claims that his imprisonment is illegal because—First, the