The record-union., 1893-08-11
THE ORDINANCE SUSTAINED.
Judge Buckley Says the Trustees Can
Revoke Licenses.
Biancoloni and Perlni Found Guilty
and Their Notorious Dance Hall
viii be Closed.

Louis Biancoloni and ]. Perini were
tried on Wednesday for selling liquor at
their dance-hall on Second street after
their license had been revoked by the
Board of Trustees for keeping a disor-
derby house. Their attorney claimed that
the ordinance which covered the matter
of revocation was void, as a license was
property and could not be taken from
them without their being heard.
1t being an important point Judge
Buckley took it under advisement until
yesterday morning, when he rendered
his decision. 1t is a subject of congratu-
lation to the community that his decision
sustains the ordinance and gives the city
relief when such places become too bad.
The following is
JUDGE BUCKLEY's DECISION:
Defendants are accused of having vio-
lated Ordinance No. p, by opening sa-
loon in this city and selling certain
liquors therein without having license
so to do as provided in said ordinance.
The court finds the following facts:
That in July of this year the city is
sued to defendants a license to conduct
said saloon, which license was to run un-
til October lsJ.
That on the 3lst day of July the Board
Of Trustees, without notice to said de-
PENDANTS and against their wishes or
knowledge. revoked said license and Or
dered repaid 10 them such proportion of
the sum paid for said license as the un-
expired term bore to the entire quarter.
That ou October lst, and after such re-
vocation, defendants continued to con
duct said saloon without further license.
That said ordinance was passed June
22, 1871; that the board ordained that it
should take effect from and after June
80, 1891, and that it was published on ten
days after its passage.
Defendants contend First, that said
ordinance is invalid by reason of insuffi-
cient publication; and, secondly, that it
is unconstitutional, in that it seeks to
deprive defendants OF property without
due process of law.
AS TO the first question, assuming that
the ordinance was published the required
number of times, it would take effect by
operation Of law, Notwithstanding any
contrary direction Of the Board Of Trus-
tees. Their direction may be treated
as Il superhuity.
The charter, among other things, en-
powers the board to fix and collect Il
license tax on all saloons, to license, tax,
regulate, prohibit or suppress all saloons
and like places.
In pursuance of this, and its police
pONeI, tHe Guy passed. the ordinance III
question, providing for the regulation OF
saloons, and in Section thereof, or
dained as follows: Nothing in this ordi-
nance shall be construed as preventing
the Board of Trustees from revoking a
license at any time, and without such
complaint being filed, on causing to be
repaid to the party to whom such
license was issued, such a proportion OF
the sum paid by him therefor as the un-
expired term bears to an entire quarter"
i license authorizing a person to retail
SplrltuOuS liquors does not create a con-
tract between him and the Government
The effect is merely permit to carry on
the trade under certain regulations, and
to exempt him from penalties provided
for unlawful sales. He takes his license
subject to such conditions as the Legisla-
ture may see fit to impose at any time.
See 40 Alabama, 363; 24 Kansas, 724;
80 Conn, 329; IL Mich, 40; IS \. H., 227;
1873 Mass, so.
The Supreme Court of this State in the
case OF In re Guerrero, Sixty-ninth Re-
ports, sustained an ordinance of the CITY
of Los Angeles, which provided that no
license to keep saloon should issue until
permit in writing from the Board of
Police Commissioners authorizing such
issue should be filed with the Clerk of
the Council, and that the Board of
Police Commissioners should have the
power to revoke said permit at any time.
The same court upheld the validity of an
ordinance of the city of Stockton, contain
ing power similar to the one in dispute
in this case. (Seventieth Cal. Reports,
page 39.)
The question of the right to revoke an
unexpired liquor license was raised in
the Supreme Court of this State. and.
while not strictly passed upon, was dis
posed Of i'll way, in my judgment, un-
favorable to the claim of defendants
herein.
Tx parte Christinsen, So Cal, 2I0; ex
parte Campbell, "a Cal, %.
Licenses to carry on avocations of life
which are not supposed to have any in
furious tendency. are property, and so is
the right to conduct the business; but n
municipal license to retail spirituous
liquors is not contract, but is simply a
permit to carry on traffic upon which
the Government may impose such con-
ditlons as it chooses, or prohibit alto
gether, and this right of regulation and
prohibition is constitutional one, which
may be enforced as q police regulation.
The defendants were therefore declared
guilty of violating the ordinance, and
will receive their sentence day.
Their attorney, w. II. Scott, gave notice
that they Will appeal the case to g higher
court, but in the meantime they will be
ordered by the Police Department to
close, and if they reopen again they will
be arrested every time they do so.
GLADIAT0RS IN TRAINING.