The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1894-03-10

provision as to the right of appeal from
the county or corporation court to the
circuit court in this class of cases. The
language OF the latter is as folow s:
EITHER party to such application shall
have the right to appeal from the order
or Judgment of the court granting or
requiring such application during the
term at which the application is heard
and decided TO the circuit court of said
county or corporation" There is q
provision in the latter act "that the
decision OF such circuit court, or the
Judge thereof in vacation, shall be final,
and no appeal, writ of error or super
sedeas shall lie to the decision of the
circuit court but that does not affect
the question we are considering The
act clearly gives the right Of appeal,
and there is nothing in it which makes
the right dependent upon the reasons
which may have actuated the Judge OF
the Hastings Court to grant or refuse
the application license. 1t would in
deed be anomalous to hold that the right
would exist II the Hastings Court re-
fused license for any cause other than
that there had been local option cleo
tion In the corporation against granting
licenses; and to deny the right of ap-
peal when license WAS refused on
VIZ A1ttcN RFOuuQ. OOuTkSt QUIET
than the Supreme Court are not
required to state reasons for these de-
c!sions, and if the view suggested were
correct, when the record was silent as
to the reasons, extrinsic evidence would
have to be introduced TO arrive at the
courts reasons, and to determine in q
given case whether there was or was not
right OF appeal. The former statute
was construed in the case of II addox va.
the county Of Clarke. 70 Virginia, GIT.
There, as here, license was refused Fl ad
dox by the county court of Clarke on
the sole ground that at local option
election held for his magisterial district
in Novem Der, 1880, majority of the
votes cast were against liquor licenses
Haddox appealed as Of right to the cir
cult court of Clarke county, where he
was again refused a license for the
reason assigned. Thereupon he ap-
pealed to the supreme court of appeals,
which reversed the decisions of the
county and circuit courts of Clarke, and
held that appellant had right to intro
duce parol evidence in tho circuit
court Ito prove that notices OF the cleo
ton had not been posted, or that any
other plain and express provision OF the
statute, providing for the election, had
not been complied with" Faunteroy,
D., commenting on the question, says:
"We are OF opinion that the Judge erred,
clearly and broadly, in so refusing to
hear tho said witnesses to prove that
the plain and express provisions of the
statute, under which the said election
was held, had not been complied with.
he was hearing the application de novo;
and the applicant, Haddox, had an in
disputaole right to show by the sheriff
uyh
under the statute, to post notices of said
election at every voting place or pre-
cine. in his said county not less
than twenty days preceding said
election, that he had posted none
himself, nor had authorized any
to be posted" and concludes that
the failure to post notices as required
rendered the election null and void.
This case is an express authority for the
appeal OF right when license is refused
ON the ground of q special cleo tion
against the granting of licenses. and is
conclusive as to the jurisdiction of this
court In the present case. But it is
further insisted that if it be allowed
that right Of appeal exists, the re-
cltals of the record of tho Hastings
Court in ordering the local option cleo.
ton OF Septem bor s., 1893. that the
piled with, are conclusive that parol
evidence to contradict them is mad
missible and they cannot be assailed.
That inasmuch as the order made by
the honorable judge OF said court,
August 4, 1893, recites: 1T appearing
to me that one-fourth Of the qualified
voters of the said city voting at the last
regular November election have signed
the petition asking for the said special
election" notwiths tanding the fact Is
otherwise, the falsity of the statement
cannot be proved. 1t is sought to dis
tlnguish this case from that Of HaddoY
VS.. the county Of Clarke, in this, that
the record of that case did not show
affirmatively that the notices Of election
had been posted The deduction from
this contention is that if the record had
so recited, although the recital was un.
true and the so called election was held
without notice, the citizens OF the com
munity would have been estopped from
denying the truth OF the recitsls and
compelled to submit to an alleged cleo
tlon which was never held, or was held
in utter disregard of the rights OF
the community, and in plain viola
tion OF the law. Surely the ad
vocates OF doctrine 80 unreason.
able and 30 fraught with mischief,
should come panoplied with authority
to sustain them, and yet not ono ad-
judged case upholding that Wow is pro.
duced. In support of the conte ntion
several grounds are alleged. They say
1t is res adjudicata; but it is not ONLY
not shown that appellant was in any
manner party to the election proceed.
ings, but not one of the eight sections OF
chapter 25 of the code, which authorizes
such elections, makes any provision for
his becoming party, or of his directly
objecting to or resisting any irregularity
OR illaaalitu that rnnu anan. hoa.a.,a.