New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-06-10
THE COURTS.
C,-prOdJS EXCISE DECISION.

oys NAY BE- RUN CLOSE TO CHURCHES
| .ou CENTURIES YET. If THIS is TIE LAW
! e., rr.sent appearances long time VIII nave
\ - hefon the provision of the Excise law "hioh
. into Eject OH April 80, prohibiting the g"luns
ucenses for the sale Of liquors Witmh -OV ioo, y.
/ VI - or srboohouse. will have any pracucai
90, IN essenng the number of barro0ns so ei'ua'eu'
| :, N. decision Of Justice McAdam' In the S"penoi
Il -. which WIS handed down yesterday, i uphcM.
L 80 the petition Of John Malnati, Judge McAdam
1 -ant.d a writ Of mandamus compelling the EAciSc
1 commissioners to grant license TO him ior par
i -, a, No 235 South Fiftlave. The fact was con-
d,d that this place was within 200 feet OF buldhs
ccupied exclusively church. Malnau also ad'n,s
Il h, he never had license before. The applicant >
i 1ro,her however Andrea Manatl, has had hceiiSo
a. tbe place for several yeas. His license ran out
=, MAY a. and John Manati applied for renewal
a it, The Excise Commissioners denied the apphca
DON saving that only tie former hccnsee cono yet I"
,e,val A. the law provided that only those VINO
already had licenses for places within 2oO Iec' vi d
church or schoohouse could have them renewed
| The section of the law governing this question
,eads as follows =" 40 person or persons WHO >hdi
not have been licensed prior to the passage Of this
act she'll hereafter bc licensed 10 sell strong or spirit
nous liquors wine. ale and beer in any bnildnS not
Used for hotel purposes. and for when Incense uos
not exist at the time OF the passage OF hs net wmc
shau be Oh the street or avenue ana WITHIN 2oo
feet Of building occupied eA'i"sNoN a. 'i"''" "
. schoolhouse.'
From his law n would seem that there u dual
Justification necessary for person TO get license
for a place within the prohibited distance. The TWO
phrases prescribing the requisite qualifications for the
licensing of such place are connected wi the con
function and Ii saws persons except those
who have had license prior TO the passage OIL uie
act land" in a building already licensed. In de
csion which Judge McAdsm handed down few days
ago IN the case Of named Jacob Leicht the facts
we're that Lcict had license before. and that the
building In which bis barrooOI was situated had also
been licensed the time of the passage Of the act
In that decision Judge McAdsm made Use OF this
language: The Introduction applies TO persons who
are not licensed prior to the passage of the act and
10 building not used for hotel purposes and in which
license did not exist at the tise of the passage of
The act
IN another place he says: The act in question
carefully guards the existing rights of licensees aud
was clearly intended to exclude only those who had
not therefore carried on business the premises
sought TO be licensed
lgit In his decision in the Malnat case Judge Nc
Adam says: "The Inhibition contained In section 40
Of the act OF 1892 applies only to buildings for which
license did not exist at the passage OF the act
The law became operative April 80. 1899. and the
building occupied by the applicant was licensed up 10
Nay II. 1e92. SO that the prohibition does not racl
his case. The act does not require that the former
Hcensee shall apply for the renewal The personality
sf the leensee Or applicant Is lmmaierla So long a.
took effect ami the applicant possesses the qnaiica
tons required by Section IL Of The act and there is
10 claim that be has not all the prerequisites. No
objection has been made to the place or the charac cr
Of the applicant. The board has refused the license
solely on account Of its misnterprctaon Of the law.
l. j., May g. 1902. applies here, and tie applicant
10 entitled TO tie wit prayed iOr."