Case ID: okla_11/html/0132-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bureord, C. J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peter Wilderson et al. v. T. D. Worley et al.
    
    (Filed July 6, 1901.)
    JUDGMENT — Not Reviewed, When, Under'rule six of this court, where the plaintiff in error has failed to file any brief, and the judgment of the district court appears to be regular, thi’s court will not search the record for errors, but will affirm the judgment,
    (Syllabus by the Court.)
    
      Error from the District Court of Oklahoma County; before B. F. Burwell, Trial Judge.
    
    
      W. B. Taylor, County Attorney, and Hays & McMechan, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      J. L. Brown, for defendants in error.
   Opinion of the court by

Bureord, C. J.:

The plaintiffs in error are the members of the board of couatjr commissioners and the county clerk of Oklahoma county. The defendants in error are remonstrants against the granting of a liquor license to one J. 0. Sidikurn, to sell malt, vinous and spirituous liquors in Oklahoma City.

Sidikurn filed his petition with the county clerk and the required notice was given. The defendants in error filed a remonstrance, in which they alleged that the petition was not signed by thirty resident tax payers of the ward where the petitioner proposed to engage in the sale of liquors, and also that the petitioner had violated the provisions of the liquor law within one year last past. The clerk fixed a day for the hearing, and on said day at about 7:30 a. m., the board met and dismissed the remonstrance, granted the license and directed the clerk to issue same, which was done before 9 o’clock of said day; the remonstrants appeared and demanded a hearing, which was refused, and an appeal denied.

The defendants in error then applied to the district court for a peremptory writ of mandamus, commanding the board to reassemble, cancel said license, and proceed to hear the evidence on the charges contained in the remonstrance. The plaintiffs in error appeared and filed an answer in which they admitted that they had acted on the petition at the hour of 7:30 a. m., and refused to hear the remonstrants, but denied certain other averments of the petition. The court on motion for judgment on the pleadings, granted- the peremptory writ of mandamus, and ordered the county board to reassemble in session, to revoke the license issued to Sidikum, and proceed to hear the petitioner and remonstrants, after requiring each to give a bond for costs.- From this order the plaintiffs in error appeal.

The defendants in error have filed a brief in the case. The plaintiffs in error have faffed to file any brief in this court, or to otherwise prosecute their appeal.

Rule six of this court provides:

“In each civil cause, counsel for plaintiff in error shall furnish a copy of his brief to counsel for defendant in error at least thirty days before the first day of court, and the counsel for defendant in error shall furnish a copy of his brief to counsel for plaintiff in error at least ten days before the first day of said term. Proof of service of the briefs must be filed with the clerk of the court seven days prior to the first day of said term. In case of a failure fce comply with the requirements of this rule, the court may continue, or dismiss the cause, or affirm or reverse the judgment.”

There being no error apparent on the face' of the record, and the plaintiffs in error, having made no effort te point out any, this court will not indulge the practice’ of hunting for errors, but will affirm the judgment of the district court, as provided in rule 6.

The judgment of the district court of Oklahoma county is affirmed at the costs of the plaintiffs in error.

Burwell, J., who presided in the court below, not sitting; all the other Justices concurring.