
    State, Plaintiff in error, vs. Reidel, Defendant in error.
    
      June 16
    
    June 19, 1944.
    
    For the plaintiff in error there were briefs by the Attorney General and William A. Platz, assistant attorney general, and oral argument by Mr. Plats.
    
    
      
      Harlan W. Kelley of Milwaukee, for the defendant in error.
    A brief amicus curice was filed by Robert E. Tehan and by Gabel & Dineen and James E. McCarty of counsel, all of Milwaukee.
   Barlow, J.

The case of State v. Potokar, ante, p. 460, 15 N. W. (2d) 158, and this case were argued together. In the Potokar Case the defendant attacked the constitutionality of sec. 66.05 (10) (hm), Stats., which fixes closing hours of Class B malt-beverage licensed premises, and in this case the defendant Reidel attacks the constitutionality of sec. 176.06, fixing closing hours of Class B intoxicating-liquor licensed premises.

The questions involved in this case were fully considered and determined in the case of State v. Potokar. For the reasons stated in that case the order sustaining the demurrer must be reversed.

By the Court. — Order sustaining the demurrer is reversed.  