Case ID: liquor-tax-rep_2/html/0192-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Kellogg, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Supreme Court,' Clinton Special Term,
    November, 1899.
    Reported. 29 Misc. 463.
    The People ex rel. The Town of Plattsburgh, Relator, v. Andrew Williams, as County Treasurer of the County of Clinton, Respondent.
    Liquor Tax Law—The poor fund of the town of Plattsburgh has no right to the State’s share of excise moneys.
    The legislation, had in regard to devoting the excise moneys of the town of Plattsburgh to its poor fund, only entitles that fund to so much of said moneys as remain after deducting therefrom the one-third part thereof, appropriated by the Liquor Tax Law of 1896 to State purposes.
    Application for a writ of mandamus.
    David H. Agnew, for relator.
    P. W. Cullinan, for respondent.
   Kellogg, J.

Application is made by the relator for a writ of mandamus to compel the treasurer of Clinton county to pay over to the town of Plattsburgh the liquor tax money received from licenses issued in the town of Plattsburgh since May 1, 1899.

This application is based upon the wording of an act passed in 1898 (Chap. 135), to amend an act of 1894 (Chap. 471), relating to the same subject. In 1894 all the excise money paid for licenses in the town of Plattsburgh went to the treasurer of the board of alms, as a poor fund. The amendment follows in this respect the wording of the old law disregarding the provisions of the Liquor Tax Law, chapter 112, of the Laws of 1896, by which one-third of such money was to be paid by the county treasurer to the State.

I cannot think that the Legislature intended this amendment of 1898 to divert from the State Treasury that one-third, while all other towns in the State must contribute one-third for State purposes. This would be such a discrimination in favor of the town of Plattsburgh as to excite grave question as to its cause. There appears to have been some blundering in the use of words in the amendatory act. The fair, and I think the proper construction, must confine the meaning of this amendment to such money as the State does not, by the Liquor Tax Law, appropriate to itself for State purposes.

The application is, therefore, denied, but without costs.

Application denied, without costs.