The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-04-21

the f0llOWfnR 1acts:
When Judge George l.. Christian was
first elected Judge Of the Hastings Court
Of this city the Chief OF Police informed
him that the Sunday law was being vio-
lated in this city, and at The same time he
furnished the Judge with a list OF witnesses
to be sent before the grand jury. About
fifty indictments were found against
different bar-keepers for this offence
on the evidence OF the witnesses
thus furnished. The Jurisdiction Of the
court was tested in one case. Judge Chris
tian held that he had jurisdiction, and
his judgment was unanimously affirmed by
the Supreme Court OF Appeals. For two
years this court exercised this Jurisdiction,
and during that time the law was practi-
cially enforced, there being but fire con-
yictions in the two years. In 1880 the Le-
gislature, against the protest Of large
portion OF the best citizens in the commu-
nifty, transferred this jurisdiction to the
Police Court, and in one year there were
hirty-eigM convictions for the violations
OF this law in that court. Judge Christian,
seeing again that the law was being vio-
lated, and that the licenses granted
by him were used for that purpose, on the
1st day OF the May term, 1881, announced
from the bench that he should refuse to
relicense those dealers who had within the
year been convicted OF violating this law.
After hearing mass Of testimony he came
to the conclusion, however, that the law
was being violated by nearly all the deal
ers, and that those who had been convicted
were really among the best persons in the
business, so that he then determined to give
all who could otherwise prove good charac-
ters another license, with the distinct under
standing that il any more were convicted
by the Police Justice he would make that
conviction The basis OF rule to show cause
why his license to keep the bar-room should
not be revoked. Mark Davis was licensed
under these circumstances, and with this
understanding. He was convicted by the
Police Justice OF violation OF this law on
the 10th August, 1881. The Justice GER
titled that fact TO the Hastings Court, and
at the next term Judge Christian awarded
Il rule against the defendant to show cause
why his license should not be revoked,
and on hearing the testimony revoked his
license. So much for the facts rs stated in
the record.
Several rules were awarded by Judge
Christian against other parties based on
like certificates; but the Judge said while
he was satisfied ii was his duty and he had
Che power to revoke licenses on this ground,
he had no desire TO exercise any iurisdic-
ton which might be considered arbitrary
or doubtful, and as Davis's was made a
test ease, nothing further was done with
any Of the other cases on which rules had
been awarded.
The following is the
rrN ,uruouc opuNToN
Of the court as delivered by Judge Joseph
Christian
Dauis as. The Commonwealth Opinion Of
the Court.
This is writ OF error to q judgment OF
the Hastings Court OF the city OF Rich
mOnd.
The plaintiff in error was licensed as a
bar-room keeper by said court, which
license was issued to him IN due form OF
law on the 9th of May, 1881.
On the 11th OF October, 1881, on the
motion OF the Attorney for the Common
wealth, q rule was awarded against Mark
Davis to show cause, ii any he could, why
the license heretofore granted to him by
said court on the 9th day OF May, 1881, to
sell by the drink. to be drunk at the place
where sold, wine, ardent spirits, malt
liquors, cider, or any mixture thereof,
at his house, No II north Twelfth
street, in this city, should not be revoked
and annulled on the ground that he had
kept his bar-room open on Sunday, contra
nv to law and since his license was grant
ed : that he is not now q eft person" to
have said license, and that his place OF busi-
ness is not now ga suitable and convene
ent" one to he licensed.
In answer to this rule, the plaintiff in er-
ror appeared and moved to quash the same,
which motion was overruled by the Court (;
and then, for answer to said rule, he said
that the Court had n" right or jurisdiction
to revoke his license .or the ground set
forth in said ~ule. He further ayerred in
his answer that he had already been pun
ished for keeping his bar-room open on
Sunday, and that a fine Of ten dollars had
been legally imposed upon him 10y the Po-
lice Justice Of the city OF Richmond on the
10th day OF August, 1881, at the Police
Court of said city; and that he ought not
10 be tried and punished 4 second time for
the same offence.
He also asked for trial by jury, which
motion the Court oyerruled, and entered Q
Judgment revoking and annullng the il,
cense which had been granted the plaintiff
in error, and also a judgment for costs.
1t is to this judgment that writ Of error
was awarded by one OF the judges OF thi'
court.
The Court is OF opinion that there is NJ
error in the said judgment Of the Husting'
Court.
The authority for the action OF the sai(
Hastings Court is found IN section LOG o
chapter 2O6 of the Acts of Assembly o
1915, page PA, which reads as follows
"Upon the motion OF the attorney To-
the Commonwealth for the county, city, o.
town, or of any other person, after tel
days notice to any person or firm licensed
70 sell liquors or any ether thing, the grant
jnp of whose license was based upon tn
certificate OF court, the court whicl
granted the certificate may revoke tn
said license. When the license OF any per
son Is revoked, as aforesaid, the Court shal
rive Judgment against the said person fo
the costs Of the proceeding, including q ie
of five dollars to the Attorney for the Com
m0nwealth."
The statute plainly conferred upon tn
Hastings Court the right to revoke IN
license which had been granted, and It wa
a matter left TO its discretion (soundly ex
ercised, OF course) to say whether the part
brought before it should continue to &C
under the license issued to him by sal
Court.
The proof is conclusive to show that tn
plaintiff in error Davis had violated th
law by selling liquor on Sunday, whic
was proved by the record in the Polio
Court, and for which he was fined by th
Police Justice.
This conviction, we think, was sufiicier
Of itself TO justify the Court in reyokin
his license. And we heartily concur wit
the court below when it says:
"This Court deems any person who wi