People v. Clark

The trial court rightly refused to permit the defendant upon his trial for selling alcoholic liquor in a “no license” territory to have in evidence certain records of the board of supervisors of Fresno County showing the boundaries of Sanger precinct No. 1 and Sanger precinct No. 2, of which precincts the “no license” territory in question formed a part.

The purpose of the proffered proof was to show an alleged irregularity in the proceedings preceding and culminating in the formation of the “no license” territory, which it is asserted, was fatal to the territory’s legal existence, and, therefore, rendered its purported formation ineffectual for any purpose. In other words, the defendant by the proffered proof proposed to collaterally challenge the validity of the “no license” territory. This, the weight of authority dealing with statutes substantially the same in scope and effect as the Wyllie Local Option Law of this state, declares he may not do. (Barton v. State, 43 Fla. 477 , [ 31 South. 361 ]; State v. Cooper, 101 N. C. 684 , [ 8 S. E. 134 ]; Woodard v. State, 103 Ga. 496 , [ 30 S. E. 522 ] ; People v. Hamilton, 58 N. Y. Supp. 959 , 27 Misc. 360 ; s. c., 61 N. Y. Supp. 979…