The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1879-11-22
A LIQUOR CASE.

LIQUOR CASE.
The peoDLe ex rel Besse VS.. The VHtag. OF Crotty
(Seneca) is also an interesting one; but we can
afford space only for synopsis OF the case,
On 23d May 1873 Bessc filed in the La Sale Co..
Circuit Court petition for a mandamus against
appellee for the purpose of compelling the latter
to issue him licenses to keep a dram shop and
pool.tablc In his petition Besse sets up the
facts that the incorporated village had passed
resolutions to grant licenses for certain sum
and had granted licenses to other parties, but re-
fused to grant them to him, although he had filed
the proper bond The demurrer was overrued,
when appellee filed an answer admitting the
facts, but charging by way of defense that inc
petitioner was not a suitable person to whom 10
grant licenses, and for that reason they had de-
clined to issue them to him. To this answer a
demurrer was Sustained, and upon appellce's de-
clining to answer further mandamus was Is
sued ordering the licenses issued The appellate
court reversed this decision, whence the record
is brought to this court
The opinion by Dickey, j., is quite lengthy
and is as a whole more interesting to the bar
than to the people. He opens with statement
of the law of mandamus, reaching the position
must show clear and indubitabe right to the
writ"
Upon this rule hangs the case. "Has appel
liant Besse brought himself within the rule here
laid DOWN." 1t apperrs not for these reasons:
a. The village board had no power to ISSUE
licenses, the authorities not having at the TIM
of the petition as yet passed ordinances decarin!
the manner in which the power to issue license
should be exercised. The resolutions adopted b.
the board of trustees fixing the amount to b.
paid ana the time of payment were not ordinances
and as resolutions merely could not authoriz
the authorities to issue licenses. Theincorpora
ton law gives villages the power to regulate ant
prohibit the selling of intoxicating liquors, bu
this must be supplemented by local ordinance
before the power becomes operative.
(2) There was consequently no one to approve
the bond required by the statute, of s., 900. Eve
II there were, the petition does not show tina
the bond presented was snch as is required b.
law, The petition states that such bond WA
presented, but that does not prove that it IRA
suitable. 1t should have been set out in hd,
yyrbd or shown by distinct and specific averment'
IL is no answer that appellee had issued liccr
SEES to Others under the same circumstances tha
it refused them to appellant. Nor is it matcril
that 1t may have placed its refusal to issu
them TO appellant upon an improper groun'
The fact that appellee may have improperly il
sued licenses to others by reason of want
authority to do So could afford no possible reaso
why it should issue them to appellant. And
appellant had no right to issue them, it wa
wholly immaterial upon what ground it place
its refusal.
The relator failed to show his right to the writ
and the Circuit Court should have sustained tn
demurrer to the petition and not to the answer
The judgment of the appellate court is affirm
ed and the writ denied.