Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/449

 find any fact in the case. Their verdict resulted from a mandatory ruling of the court upon the trial, which ruling was not excepted to. If this was error, it was an "error of law occurring on the trial." The judgment must be affirmed. All concur.

, J., having been of counsel, did not sit in the above case, nor participate in the decision.

, ex rel, States Attorney for Cass County, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. and , Defendants and Respondents.

1. Intoxicating Liquors—Place Where Liquor is Sold a Nuisance.

Where it appears that one of the defendants, who resides at St. Paul, Minn., is, through the agency of the other defendant, engaged in carrying on the business of keeping for sale and selling intoxicating liquor at a place of business located at Fargo, in the state of North Dakota, in violation of the prohibitory liquor law, held, that such place of business is a common nuisance, whether such liquor was or was not drank by purchasers at such place of business, with the knowledge and consent of the agent in charge of such place of business. Construing § 13, c. 110, Laws N. D. See State v. Chapman, (S. D.) 47 N. W. Rep. 411.

2. Same—Original Packages—Wilson Bill.

Held, further, since the passage by congress of the law commonly known as the “Wilson Bill.” that sales of intoxicating liquor in violation of the prohibitory legislation of North Dakota, which are made in this state by a non-resident, through an agent living in this state, are unlawful sales, whether the liquor sold is or is not imported liquor, or whether it is or is not contained in the original cask or package in which it was shipped out of another state or county. In re Van Vliet, 43, Fed. Rep. 761; in re Spicklar, id. 653.

PPEAL from district court, Cass county; Hon. {{sc|William B. McConnell}, Judge.

George F. Goodwin, attorney general, ''Chas. A. Pollock, assistant attorney general, and S. B. Bartlett, for appellant; Messrs. Ball & Smith and Tilly & Stewart'', for respondents.