The Brookhaven leader., 1885-11-19
DeclsIons'of the Supreme Court on
the Granting OF Liquor
Licenses.
Reported for the Clarion. ]
Cox CoRBETT


V.
/ L. A. DUNCAN EFT AL.
From the Circuit Court of Lauderdale
county. Hon. S. II. Terrell, Judge.
Corbett presented petition to
the municipal authorities of the
city of Meridian for license to retail
yinous and spirituous liquors in less
quantities than one gallon. 1t was
signed by a majority of the legal
voters resident in the corporation,
as was claimed. A petition was
filed against the issuance Of the Ii
cense, which was signed by only
thirteen persons. A controversy
was had, which resulted in granting
the license. Thereupon the counter
petitioners instituted in the circuit
court a certiOrari proceeding to re-
view the action of the corporate au-
thorlties. Judgment was entered
vacating the order granting the Ii,
cense, from which judgment the ap-
plicant appeals. Among other
things, it was urged on behalf of
appellant that the persons who OBJ
jected to granting the license had
no standing in court because it was
conceded that the petition
did not have the signature Of a ma
jority of the legal voters; and that
certiorari did not lie. rhe opinion,
by COOPER, C. j., Is given in full
Section HOB of the Code of 1880
authorizes one or more legal voters
of any town or city in which license
is sought to be obtained to retail
vinous or spirituous liquors, to in
terpose his or their objections to the
grant of such license by exhibiting
counter petition to the proper au-
thoritics. 1t is not necessary that a
counter petition shall be signed by
q majority of the legal voters OF
such town. Where it is sought to
prevent the issuance of license to
any party whatever during period
of twelve months after the presenta-
tion of a petition, it is then neces-
sary to have ajority of the legal
voters join In the counter petition.
But where particular application
only is sought to be defeated, sim
gle voter may intervene, and in in
tervening he may insist upon any
valid objection to the grant of the
license. Such counter petition can
have no legal effect as such, unless
it be signed by voters who have
signed the petition for licen sc, in
which event the name so appearing
upon both the petition and the coun.
ter-petition are to be counted
against the petitioner; but it is q
convenient and proper method q
calling attention of the authorities
to any defect appearing upon the
face of the original petition, or Of
suggesting any fact by reason %
which the license should not b.
granted.
There is no appeal provided b,
, statute from the descisions Of The
corporate authorities, and since
there is no other remedy, and since
their action is quasi judicial, certiO
r0ri NAV be awarded to correct al
errors of law apparent on the face o
the record, Allen .. Leree Com
: missionerS, 81 Miss, 1853; 2 Wait:
Actions and Defences, 1874.
1t is unnecessary TO consider al
, of the various objections taken t.
the action Of the corporate authori
ties, since we are enabled to salts
factorily dispose of the case upor
the insufficiency of the petition upor
which the license was sought. Thu
Code, 5 1103, declares that no Ii
cense shall be granted to any per
son to retail vinous or spirituous
liquors in less quantities than ont
gallon unless the applicant shall
first produce petition for the issu
ance of such license, and "recom
mending the said applicant to be o.
good reputation, and a sober anC
suitable person to receive the Ii
; cense." The petition by which the
appellant supported his application
represented him to be sober anC
suitable person to receive the IL
cense, but it does not contain any
r representation that he is person
of good reputation as the statute re
quires.
1t NAV be that these petitioners
believed that man who was sober
and suitable to retail liquor was
necessarily a man of good reputa
, ton, and therefore they omitted tt
add the statutory certificate requir
ed as surplusage; but, on the Other
hand, it may be that they were un
: willing to certify that the applicant
, was of good reputation in the com
munity, but was, nevertheless, ir
; their opinion suitable man to re
ceive license to retail. However
this may be, it is manifest that The
Z petition wholly fails to conform to {
positive requirement of the statute
. in matter which we are not justifi
ed in treating as immaterial.
: The petition was insufficient, ant
the judgment is affirmed.