Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-01-31

States. As II In a business attended
with danger to the community II may,
as already said, be entirely prohibited,
Or be permitted under such conditions
NJ will limit 90 the utmost IL evils.
The manner aud extent Of regulation
rest In the discretion Of the governing
authority. That authority may veal
In such officers a. Il may deem proper
the power Of passing upon applications
for permission 10 carry 10 on 10 issue
license for that purpose. i'-tawyer's
Cooperative Publishing Company,
December, 1890, y. S0.9j.
THIS casn Of State OK rel. Rigcr VI.
Holt Co. 30 Mo. b2l, was an application
Tot a writ Of mandate TO compel the
county court 10 issue n license. Tho
statute provided that II the court ahall
he OF the opinion that the applicant Ia
u person Of good character,
the COURT MAY GRANT A ucrSsr
ron siN aiOs11la.
This fact was admitted. Tn, .ppll.
cation was made In conformitv win
the requirements In all respects OF the
statut. governing licenses. And The
county court refused 10 grant the
license, tic court holding that
although n Iariy applying Tor
dram shop license may show bins.if
70 POSSESS all the qualification requisite
for the issuing Of n licenss under the
statute, the county court may stilI. In
the exercise Of IT, discretion, refuse In
grant such license.
Miller W. Commissioner, 50 n. q.
lTs, application for mandamua.
The statute Involved In the case pro.
ylded that the applicant might Obtain
license from the county coinnls,ig,.
era TO retail liquor uron proving a good
moral character. The court held That
such commissioners weru not hound 10
license an applicant, though he he
qualified by proof of good moral char.
ncter; that they had limited legal
discretion and In passing upon an ap-
plicstion they have n right 10 take Into
consideration the question whether m.
demands Of the public require an I'm.
crease Of such Accommodations and
whether the place proposed 10 establish
har-room nj would lie n suitable one.
To thcsamc effect Ia Attorney. General,
etc., W. the
Justices OF Guildford County, 9 Id.
8.
Petition Of Wallace q. Rudcnbuscb,
100 IN. st., 32s;
schlandccker Va. Marshall Ut al, 52
ID, 200;
Tool.'s appeal. 90 Id, $40;
Tbs statutes providing for licenses |
construed In those cases differ In some |
respects from the Utah statute; but
THE rRiScfrLrs LAID Down ~ THEN
ARE siN'LAn iN1FffCr
TO the North Carolina cases. Parher
W. Portland, 81 Michigan, 31s, wn. a .
petition for mandamus 10 compel Tho
board OF trustees OF the village VI Port
land TO approve n liquor bond. The
power 10 regulate the business had not
been granted by the lcgislaiur. 10 the
board. Their simple duly wa. 10 deter
mine the suiil ciency Of the bond; the
discretion only extended 10 that uuty.
The court held that n mandamus 10
compel village board TO APPROX. n
liquor lond Will be- denied N there Ia
npthing TO show that the refusal TO
approve u was capriclous, or 10 rcbut the
that tho board had fairly
passed upon nil the questions which
determine the suilicioncy OF the bond
aud tho reliability Of the sur.tie-,
Patten W. Village Of Homer. 80, Mlchi.
gan >, aud Ampirrc CITY Of Kalamazoo
ar- ni.o mandamu- cases, involviie a
last It ;.an ~ ss6lessa " Is ~ ~
Homer, the court held that the village
In approving the bond had the
same discretion, and no morn than 4.
Possessed by other persons called on 10
approve -urotic-. We 10 not regard the
Michigan casts n analogous 10 the onc
IA hand.
The plaintiff also relies upon Zanone
W. Mound CITY, los Ills, b52. The
court held that the village council
under the power 10 regulate the llquor
Iniiic might refuse 10 license persons
u such habits and character rs rem.
iercd them unit 10 DO licensed, and 10
limit the number Of drnm-hop keepers.
but held that the discretion should be
exercised by ordinance In order 10
avoid iavOritism and monopoly.
From this opinion three OF tho seven
Judges dlsscntcd.
After careful consideration Of the
statutes, tho ord finances aud the cases
,ltej, we hold that
THE DEFENDANT POSSESSES THE
PowER
10 license, regulate aud tax the lIounr
business, ami that In the use OF such
authority II may exercise a rraHonahl,
discretion In determining who aro
'uitible persons 10 enlrust tho business
o; the places where II may lie con
iuctcd, aud the number OF licenses II
VIII Issue. And that the Council may
exercise that discretion when the applI.
alton u made when II has not done 40 :
~ ordinance before. And that the
curt VIII not assume that the Council
'cted arbitrarily or from any improper
motive without sons evidence 10 thai
'ii.ct.
The writ Of mandamus IL denied.
Concurred In by Blackburn, j.; An.
Ierson, J.
Miner, j., reserves the right 10 hand
own separate opinion.