Monongalia mirror. [volume] (Morgantown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1855, 1854-10-07
Important Decision on Licensing.

ne lolIowlng demands the CONSIDERATION
Of the friends Of Temperance in Virginia,
aud should urge them 10 immediate action
il is The decision Of the Court Of Appeals,
affirming the right of County Courts to re-
fuse license under any circumstances, and
declaring that the County Court cannot be
compelled 10 grant license by any remedy
at common law. The reader will observe,
however, that the matter is still open for
litigation, the Court declining TO express an
opinion OH the fourth point, which will be
seen below.
A gentleman, Mr.. Yeager of Mason coun.
ty, applied 10 the County Court fora license
10 keep an ordinary. He proved himself TO
be all that The law requires but the Court
refused the license. He then applied to
Judge Summers for a mandamus to compel
the Court TO grant the license but the Judge
refused, on the ground that the County Court
was by law vested with discretionary pow
ers in the matter. After this decision the
case was carried TO the Court of Appeals,
which decided as follows:
"lsi, By the terms of the law under
which this application was made the coun-
ty and corporation conrls are clothed with
power and discretion in the matter Of grant.
ing license to keep ordinaries in their seve.
raj counties and corporations: in the exer-
else Of which it is not within the province
Of the Circuit Courts 10 control them by
means Of mandamus.
ted. They decide that the terms Of the
law, found in the Code, do not differ in ef-
feet and substance from the laws Of 1877,
which says the power of granting licenses
shall be in the respective county courts
of l7O5, which says and they (the justi-
ces) by their discretion, shall judge whether
it is convenient for such house to be set
up. &c.'-of l7ls, which says IF such Pc
,ition shall appear reasonable, such court is
hereby authorized, and may if they think
fit, grant the petitioner license, &c.;;' and
the words Of the act Of 1919, are Of similar
import. ....
Sd. The petitioner showed that he was
person to whom the court might grant Ii.
cense, and may still grant it, but did not
thereby acquire such right TO such license
as places it in the power Of the circuit court
to say to the county court, through the agen.
cies Of any civil proceeding, that they shall
grant it.
"lM. Whether The Court may be proceeded
against by ray Of information or indictment,
for ,r,!ful abuse Of their discretion, in refu-
sing TO grant license, is question about
whieh the Court declines to express an opinion.
"5,h. The Legislature has no, provided
any mode of revising and controlling the dis
cretion of the county court, and the COURTS
Of opinion that no remedy in such cases ex-
lists at common law, by way of mandamus,
writ of error, or cer,iorari, they therefore af-
firm the judgment of Judge Summers
Let the advocates Of prohibition Of the
liquor traffic at once set to work in their
respective neighborhoods, and by enlighten-
ing and arousing tie public mind, remove
the great nuisance as speedily as possible
from every county, and so demonstrate the
policy and justice Of giving TO the principle
of prohibition the solemn sanction Of an ex-
press law.
We shall look with some impotence for
a loud and strong condemnation Of this i'm.
por,ant decision, (which is stronger than the
Maine liquor law,) by those journals which
have opposed a prohibition Of the liquor
traffic, as inconsistent with religion and the
rights Of men and Virginans,-To-Day.