LICENSE-OKLAHOMA-MALT LIQUOR SALE ILLEGAL IN OK

LAHOMA.—

Under the organic act, providing that Laws Neb., ch. 50, entitled "Liquors," shall be in force in the territory, but no license shall be issued thereunder, taken in connection with said chapter 50, which makes it a misdemeanor to sell malt liquors without a license, the sale of such liquors is illegal. Kelly vs. Courter, Oklahoma, 30 Pac. Rep. 372.

LICENSE-PENNSYLVANIA-DEALER NOT BOUND BY ORAL

AGREEMENT.—

The Supreme Court of the state of Pennsylvania has decided a case bearing upon the practice of the local licensing courts in the matter of making private agreements with liquor dealers. According to the ruling of the Supreme Court, a liquor dealer who obtains a license from the licensing court and pledges himself to certain conditions in order to obtain it is not bound by such an agreement, the licensing courts not being authorized to make such contracts. The case was one in which a dealer obtained a license upon the understanding that he would not be an applicant for a license in the following year. The dealer repudiated his promise, and the Supreme Court sustains his action.

LICENSE-PENNSYLVANIA-BREWER CAN PAY SALOON LICENSE OF A PHILADELPHIA SALOONKEEPER.—

A saloonkeeper borrowed $3,000 from a brewing company at the time his license was granted and gave a judg ment note for the amount. Judgment was entered upon the note, and the saloonkeeper then took a rule to have it set aside on the ground that he did not owe that sum, part of the money having been used in the purchase of the license. Judge Gordon sustained the plea, deciding that it was against the law for an outside party to have an interest in a saloonkeeper's license, and that no recovery could be made on a debt secured in this manner. The Supreme Court completely reversing this ruling, and decided that there was nothing in the saloonkeeper's representations on which collection of the judgment could be defeated.

Germantown Brewing Co. vs. Booth, Sup. Court Pa., July, 1894.

LICENSE-PENNSYLVANIA-MAY BE REFUSED ARBITRARILY.

A license may be refused without assigning any reason therefor if it appear that such decision is the result of consideration.

In re Sperring, 7 Pa. Super. Ct., 131.

LICENSE-PENNSYLVANIA-STOCKHOLDERS

IN DISTILLING

OR BREWING COMPANY NOT ENTITLED TO LICENSE.

Stockholders in distilling or brewing companies are not permitted to take out a license to sell liquor at retail.

In re Consumers' Brewing Co.'s Licenses, 7 Pa. Dist. R. 193.

LICENSE-TEXAS-CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAW.

The Texas law, requiring an applicant for liquor license to execute in advance a bond, in the penalty of $5,000, payable to the state, and conditioned that he will not sell liquor to any person after having been notified by an officer, or by certain relatives of such person, not to do so, any of whom are authorized to sue on the bond in case of a breach; and further imposing a state and county occupation tax, and requiring payment of all taxes a year in advance, is not in conflict with the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States; providing that the privileges and immunities of citizens shall not be abridged by state laws, and that no state shall deprive any citizen of property without due process of law, nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws.

Giozra vs. Tiernan, U. S. S. C., 13 S. C. Rep. 721.

LICENSE-TEXAS-WHICH DID NOT INDICATE PLACE OF SALE.

Defendant, having a license to retail intoxicating liquors, which did not indicate the house in which the liquor should be sold, as required by law, set up a bar in his "grocery" building, and also one in an adjacent building designated as his "saloon," where he sold liquor by the drink and posted his license: Held, that these facts were insufficient to support an indictment for selling liquor without a li

cense.

Pearce vs. State, Tex., 32 S. W. Rep. 697.

LICENSE-TEXAS-PAYMENT OF INTERNAL REVENUE TAX MAY BE INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE IN TEXAS.—

On a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquors without a state or county license, the paying of an internal revenue tax to the United States for selling liquor may be shown by a copy of entries from a book kept in the internal revenue office, which, under the internal revenue laws, is required to show the names of persons who have paid such tax.

Gersteman vs. State, Tex., 33 S. W. Rep. 357.

LICENSE-WISCONSIN-IS NOT TRANSFERABLE.—

Peter J. Backes was granted a license by the town board of Spencer, Marathon County, Wis., July 6, 1897, and a few months later assigned his license to one Bayne. The town board sanctioned the transfer. After he had sold liquor under this license for several weeks he was arrested, charged with selling liquor without a license, and on appeal the Supreme Court held:

First-The powers of the town board (which is on an equal footing with the common council) are purely statutory. It could only exercise such powers as were expressly granted to it by statute, or necessarily implied from the powers so granted.

Second-A license is granted as a mere privilege to be enjoyed while the conditions and restrictions are complied with, and implies special confidence and trust in the licensee. From the very nature of things such a license is not assignable at common law. The fact that Bayne rented the saloon from Backes, and took an assignment of his license, therefore, gave him no authority to sell under the license issued to the latter.

State vs. Bayne, Wis., 75 N. W. Rep. 405.

LICENSE-WISCONSIN-INJUNCTION WILL NOT LIE, AT SUIT OF ONE WHO WILL SUFFER NO LOSS BY ISSUANCE OF LICENSE.

Equity will not enjoin municipal officers from granting licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors at the suit of a

private individual who will suffer no special damage by reason of such licenses being granted.

Nast vs. Town of Eden, Wis., 62 N. W. Rep. 409.

LICENSE-WISCONSIN-POWERS OF LEGISLATURE.—

The licensing of intoxicating liquors is an exercise of the police power, and not of the taxing power of the state to raise revenue.

Rock County vs. City of Edgerton, Wis., N. W. Rep. 201.

LICENSE-WISCONSIN-PAYMENT.—

Though Rev. St., § 1549, providing that a liquor license shall not be issued till the license fee is paid, does not require that the fee shall accompany the application, one who, on applying for a license, pays a portion of the fee and opens his saloon, cannot, on a license being denied and his saloon closed because of his failure to pay the balance, recover the amount paid.

Hague vs. City of Ashland, Wis., 65 N. W. Rep. 508.

LICENSE-WISCONSIN-BREWER'S AGENT-MUST BE LICENSED TO SELL IN TOWNS OTHER THAN WHERE BREWERY IS LOCATED.

Under Gen. Laws 1885, ch. 296, providing that, if any person sells any intoxicating liquor in any quantity without first having obtained a license therefor, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. The agent of a brewing company who sells beer without a license to a dealer in a town other than the one in which such company's brewery is located is guilty of such offense.

Mayer vs State, Wisconsin, 53 N. W. Rep. 444.

LICENSE-WYOMING-POWER OF CITY.—

A city ordinance provided that, upon application for a license to sell intoxicating liquors, and compliance with certain requirements, such license should be issued, and that all licenses should be subject to the ordinances and regulations in force at the time of the issuing thereof. Rev. St., § 161, invested the city with power to enact ordinances to

"levy and collect taxes on saloons, liquor sellers, and regu late the same by ordinances." Held, that the city had the right to prescribe the locality in which such business should be permitted.

975.

State vs. City Council of City of Cheyenne, Wyo., 52 Pac. Rep.

LICENSE-WYOMING-DISCRETION AS TO ISSUING.

Discretion as to issuing licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors within certain limits is held to be properly granted to the council by an ordinance, where there is charter authority to enact ordinances taxing and regulating that business. But it is held that such discretion must be reasonably exercised.

State of Wyoming, Noble vs. Cheyenne, 40 L. R. A. 710.

CHAPTER VIII.

MUNICIPAL POWER.

MUNICIPAL POWER.-COUNTY SUPERVISORS HAVE NO POWER OVER CORPORATE TOWNS.—

Roach, a saloonkeeper of Hanford, was arrested for violating an order of the county supervisors, which prohibits the sale of intoxicants between 10 p. m. and 5 a. m. Roach's attorney contended that since he held a license granted by the corporation of the town of Hanford, the order of the supervisors must be inoperative. In other words, the contention was that the supervisors have no police power within the limits of an incorporated town or city, and the Supreme Court upholds this contention. By section 11, article XI of the constitution, equal power is given both town and county governments, and it is held