Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/454

 said principals from a foreign state, and received, stored, and sold by him in the original packages in which the same were consigned to him from a foreign state, and received by him in this state. (3) That under the laws of the state of North Dakota said premises in said complaint described cannot be adjudged a public nuisance by reason of said premises being occupied and used by said defendant Simon Fraser, as agent for George Benz & Sons, importers of spirituous and malt liquors, for the purpose of receiving, storing and selling the same, shipped to him by his said principals, so long as he receives, stores, and sells the same in the original packages in which said liquors are consigned to him by his principals from a foreign state, and in which he receives the same in this state. (4) That to justify the court in adjudging the premises a public nuisance it must be shown by clear and positive evidence that said premises were used by said defendant Fraser as a resort for drinking intoxicating liquors, and that such liquors were so drank on said premises, by and with his knowledge and consent. Let judgment be entered accordingly. By the court ., Judge.” Upon these findings a judgment of dismissal was entered.

By a consensus of judicial opinion, both state and federal, the question of whether a state, in the exercise of its power to conserve the public Health and morals, may wholly prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors within its boundaries, is no longer debatable in the courts. It is equally well settled where a statute of a state prohibits the manufacture and sale of liquor, and declares that all places in the state where it is made or sold are common nuisances, and also authorizes a court of equity to abate such places as nuisances, and to enjoin the prosecution of such business by the ordinary procedure employed by courts of equity, that such legislation does not deprive any one of any rights guaranteed by the constitution of the United States. See Mugler v. Kansas and Kansas v. Ziebold, 123 U. 8. 623, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 273; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 6. No reason is given by the trial court for its judgment dismissing the action, other than a general statement to the effect that under existing law it is not unlawful