Cited by

State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , .

The evident purpose of the statute is not the punishment of the offender, but the reimbursement of the state.” In State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , , the court said that the commitment until payment of the fine was not a part of the penalty, for the offensé, but to compel obedience, and “a reasonable exercise of this power is inherent in the court.” In State v. Schmail, 25 Minn. 370 , it was held that a justice was authorized to “render judgment fo

Dodge v. State, 24 N. J. Law, 455; State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , .

P. R. Co. 31 Minn. 472 , , 289; State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , ; Lincoln v. Haugan, 45 Minn. 451 , .

State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , ; State v. Eobinson, 101 Minn. 277 , ,.

State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , ; City of Jordan v. Nicolin, 84 Minn. 367 , ; sections 4031, 4542, 4776, 5242, B. L. 1905.

Very soon after the enactment of the 1887 statutes the question of their nature and effect came before the court in State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , , and it was held that chapters 5, 6, and 81 superseded all inconsistent charter provisions as to the terms and conditions on which licenses might be issued, and also that the legislation was complete in itself and did not require additional local leg *316 islation by city councils to render it operativ

State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , ; State v. Harris, 50 Minn. 128 , ; State v. Holt, 69 Minn. 423 , ; State v. Arbes, 70 Minn. 462 , ; Kelly v. City of Faribault, 83 Minn. 9 , .

Section 5960; State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , .

In the case of State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , , it was held that the provisions of Laws 1887, cc.

State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , .

ast referred to, counties, cities and villages are still authorized to issue license's; but the provision in relation to the bond is general, applicable to all alike, and there is nothing in this statute modifying the general rule, or from which it can be fairly implied that the bond should run to the separate municipality instead of to the state.” This decision is in line with State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , , where it is held that Laws 1887, cc.

P. R. Co., 31 Minn. 472 , ; State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , ; Lincoln v. Haugan, 45 Minn. 451 , .

And, as held in State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , ( ,) the absence from the journal of either house of an entry showing that a particular thing was done, is no evidence that it was not done, unless the constitution requires the entry to be made; and there is no such requirement in respect to the reading of a bill on three different days, or its passage

In State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143 , ( 36 N. W. Rep.

State v. Peterson, 38 Minn. 143, 149 , ( 36 N. W. Rep.