Pearsons v. Peters et al.. 162 Pennington County, Mineral School Dist. No. 10 v.... 602 Perkins, Com. of Ins., Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Peterson et al. v. Chicago M. & St. P. Ry. Co... Peters et al., Pearsons v... 162 Petty, Sheriff, et al., Odell v. 532 Pfeiffer et al., McCormick v. 269 Phoenix Ins. Co. et al., V. Perkins, Com. of Ins.. Pribble v. Bromley et al. 75 State et al. v. Coughran et al. 271 State et al., C. & J. Michel Brewing Co. v.. 302 59 122 59 90 CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE State of South Dakota STATE ex rel. CROTHERS et al. v. BARBER et al., TOWN OF HET. LAND TRUSTEES. 1. Laws 1897, p. 214, c. 72, 23, constituting Rev. Pol. Code, § 2856, as amended by Laws 1903, p. 191, c. 166, relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors, provides that the question of granting permits to sell at retail shall be submitted on petition at the annual municipal election held in any township, town, or city, and, if a majority vote in favor thereof, the corporate authorities shall grant permits "for the ensuing year." Held, that this requircd the annual submission of the question, and limited the power to grant permits to the ensuing year after an election favoring the same, unless authorized by an election for the following year. 2. Construing such section thus does not make the law of 1897, p. 203, c. 72, a prohibition law instead of a license law, and therefore unconstitutional because the term "prohibition" is not used in its title. 3. The law is not unconstitutional as delegating power to local communities to prohibit or authorize such sale, as the law is uniform in its operation throughout the state, applies to all persons, and does not leave the question of prohibition to towns and cities, as it does prohibit the sale unless the conditions are complied with. (Opinion filed December 21, 1904.) Opinion of the Court-CORSON, P. J. [19 S. D. Appeal from circuit court, Kingsbury county; Hon. CHARLES S. WHITING, Judge. Prohibition by the state,, on the relation of P. R. Crothers and another, against L. W. Barber and others, trustees of the town of Hetland, in Kingsbury county. From a judgment awarding the writ, defendants appeal. Affirmed. Taubman & Williamson, for appellants. Warren & Warren (Aubrey Lawrence, of counsel), for respondents. CORSON, P. J. This is an appeal from a judgment awarding a writ of prohibition against defendants, as trustees of the incorporated town of Hetland. The facts found by the court, upon which the writ of prohibition was based, are in substance as follows: That relators were residents, taxpayers and legal voters of the town of Hetland, and that said town was duly. incorporated; that the defendants constituted the duly elected, qualified, and acting board of trustees of said town; that appli'cations were made by various persons, in due form of law, for permits to sell intoxicating liquors in said town during the year commencing July 1, 1904, and ending July 30, 1905, which applications were filed with the clerk, and the board of trustees set a day for hearing said applications, and directed notice thereof to be published, which was duly published; that the question of granting permits or of receiving license for the sale of intoxicating liquors was not submitted to the legal vot ers of said town at the annual municipal election held therein for the year 1904; that the question of sale of in said town was thereof at the annual |