The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-05-18

up test case before the Hastings Court BY
selecting one Of their number George Hun
dertmark) to make application. which he
did through counsel. Upon that applica-
ton Judge Christian delivered the follow
ing opinion yesterday morning:
In the Matter of the Application of George
Hundertmdrk for Reneual Of His Bar
Room License.
The applicant, who has been a licensed
bar. keeper In this city for several years, has
applied 10 this Court for a renewal OF his
license for this year. In support Of his ap-
plcation four citizens testify that he is a
man OF good character generally, and, as far
as they are advised, his place OF business Is
conducted In very orderly and reputable
manner. On the other hand, only two OF
the witnesses offered IN support OF the ap-
plicatlOn had ever been in the petitioners
bar-rOOm on Sunday, and one OF these testi.
tied that he bad seen drinking going on
in there on that dav. The records Of this
court show that whilst ii had jurisdiction OF
the enforcement OF what is known as the
" Sunday law" this applicant was convicted
and punished for its violation, and that ia
risdlction having been transferred TO the
Police Court, the certificate Of the Justice Of
that court informs me that as recently as
the Oh day Of March. 1881, said applicant
was again convicted OF IA violation OF this
same law, and that Slr welLknown young
gentlemen OF this city were the witnesses
summoned by the Commonwealth 10 prove
the offence.
Upon this state OF facts am asked, in the
exercise OF a sound legal discretion, TO
renew the license Of this applicant. Con-
ceding, as do, that The applicant is one of
the most respectable OF his class, many Of
whom | believe to be very reputable citi
Zens, the effect Of his application is to ask
this Court to continue TO grant him license
by which be can 90 on 10 violate the laws Of
this COmmonwe when in tlcO out OF the
last three years in which such license has been
granted he has been cOnricted Of such viola
ton Of the laws, and seen at other times
doing so, by one Of The witnesses offered by
him IN support of his application. How can
/, in the face OF these facts, be "fulIy satis-
fed," as the law says | must be before
granting the license, that the applicant is a
" tt person" to again entrust with priyi.
lege which he has so far abused in violating
a law which both this and the Police Court
have striven 50 hard to enforce in this city
| think l. the PLAIN duty OF every court in
means in its power 10 enforce euery ialc en-.
grated upon the sfatute-bOoks. With the
pOticy OF laws the courts have nothing to
do; they are only made to enforce them,
and when they fail to exercise every proper
means TO do this they should be abolished
As useless and expensive pieces OF govern
mental machinery. | think | would be
clearly derellct in the discharge OF my duty
As the Judge OF this court il | did not re-
fuse to relicense this applicant under the
circumstances above set forth, and were
TO grant him a license again, and thereby
enable him to continue TO violate the laws OF
this State, | should feel that was pdrticepS
criminiS to any offence committed by him
under that license. Being OF the opinion
that Withholding the license in proper cases
Is a wise and most efficient mode OF enforc-
ing obedience TO those laws which the Ii.
ccnse enables the holder 10 violate, and that
this is proper case for the exercise Of that
power. | shall refuse to renew the license OF
this applicant.
The records OF this court show, that two
thirds OF the crime tried at its bar. is engen-
dered, directly or indirectly, by the use OF
ardent spirits, and the estimate OF the Police
Justice is that eighty per cent OF that tried
by him springs from the same source. Not.
wlthstandlng this alarming exhibit, the last
General Assembly, in its wisdom, out
stripped its predecessors in attempting to
provide licenses for those who wished to
engage in the sale OF liquors, and under
took, in order 10 accomplish this end, 10
subordinate the Jurisdiction OF this court
10 that Of the Circuit Court in relation to
this subject, when, in my opinion, they are
clearly made courts Of coordinate iuIlsdic-
tiOn under the Constitution of the State.
Ii is provided in the second section OF
the act under which this application Is
made that il this court shall "refuse Ia
grant the license" . the party ag-
grieyed moy, during the term AT which such
refusal is entered, appeal to the Circuit
Court OF said county or corporation In term
time or vacation, and the judge thereof
shall take cOgnizance Of said appeal and
grant the license upon the terms required
by the act" and it having been stated at
the bar by the Attorney for the Common
wealth that in case OF Il refusal OF the Ii
cense this would be made test case by
being taken 10 the Circuit Court, have
thought il but just to this applicant to con-
slider the question Of the right Of appeal
position OF this court on that question, in
order that there may be no misunderstood.
ing on that subject hereafter.
Section II Of Article VI. Of the COnstitu'
tion OF the State provides that this court
shall have "SimiLar jurisdiction which may
be given by law TO the circuit courts Of this
Stale" In CahOon's case, 20 Grattan, s2i,
Judge Moncure, says the effect OF this pro-
. +. raf tnfN ~
the hustings courts to the grade aud dignity
OF circuit courts" to make them
have "simiIar jurisdiction with the circuit
courts; in other words. be OF the same
grade with the circuit courts, so that an ap-
peal would lie directly from the corporation
or hustings courts 10 the Supreme Court OF
Appeals; and the legislative interpreta-
ton Of this provision, except in this case,
Is thus expressed in the Code, chapter ljf,
sections a and %: "The said hus'ings
court and the judge thereof shall have the
same power as a circuit court or circuit
Judge to admit to bail, award iniunctions,
writs OF hGbedS corpus, quo lcdrrdntO, man
ddmuS, aud prohibition"
"Appeas, wrils OF error, and writs OF
superSededS, from and to, judgments, de-
crees, and orders OF the said Hastings Court,
shall be taken and allowed. As IL they were
from or TO those OF a Circuit Court or a
circuit Judge" 1t is perfectly true that the
exception giving the appeal from this court
TO the Circuit Court IN this liquor law
would supersede the general provisions on
the subject, as Just stated from the Code, II
the exception is not in conflict with the
provision Of the Constitution establishing
ibls court and defining its jurisdiction.
think such conflict clearly exists. and that
therefore this provision OF the liquor law IS
rOid.
II there is any well-recognized distinction
in the law, 1t is that between what Is known
as the original and appellate jurisdiction OF
rho cnuris. and IN saw where one court has