
    PEOPLE v. RALL.
    Intoxicating Liquors — Local Option Law — Information — Sufficiency.
    A warrant and information under the local option statute need not negative the exceptions contained in the proviso to section 15, relative to selling for sacramental purposes, and ren- ' dering it inapplicable to druggists or registered pharmacists selling under and in compliance with law.
    Exceptions before judgment from Eaton; Smith, J.
    Submitted November 19, 1903.
    (Docket No. 227.)
    Decided January 26, 1904.
    Luther J. Rail was convicted of violating the local option law.
    Affirmed.
    
      Frank A. Dean and Thompson & Temple, for appellant.
    
      Lewis J. Dann, Prosecuting Attorney (George Huggett, of counsel), for the people.
   • Hooker, J.

The defendant was a hotel keeper, and was convicted of violating the provisions of the local option statute. The only question in the case is the suffici®cy of the warrant and information; it being claimed that they are invalid because they do not show that the acts of the defendant were not within the exceptions contained in section 15 of the statute (Act No. 183, Pub. Acts 1899), as to selling for sacramental purposes, and rendering it inapplicable to druggists or registered pharmacists in selling under and in compliance with law.

The case needs no protracted discussion. It is ruled by Smalley v. Ashland Brown-Stone Co., 114 Mich. 109 (72 N. W. 29); People v. Allen, 122 Mich. 123 (80 N. W. 991).

The conviction is affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.  