88 Mo. 143 | Mo. | 1885
Defendant was prosecuted by information in the St. Louis court of criminal correction for keeping a dramshop without, license in the city of St. Louis.- He was convicted and fined forty dollars, from which he appealed -to the St. Louis court of appeals, where the judgment was affirmed, and from which' he has prosecuted a writ of error to this court.
This court has no appellate jurisdiction over judgments rendered by the St. Louis court of appeals in. •cases of misdemeanor. Article 6, section 12, of the Constitution. The defendant, however, insists, that we have .such jurisdiction in this particular case, as it involves; the construction of the revenue laws of this state. Even though we may so regard the statute requiring á dram-shop keeper to pay a license tax before he-can legally