Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1895-03-21

| granted 10 person having the quail
fcations referred to, would prevent
this court from granting Mr., APPEL
this permit,
No reasonable man would for mo-
ment say or hold, that partner in a
business, owning one-half Of its capt.
tai stock, paying his share OF govern
ment, state, county and municipal
taxes on that stock, and participating
equally in the division Of the profits
Of the concern IN which spirituous,
malt and other prohibited liquors
we're regularly sold or traficed in, in
the daily continuous business OF the
concern, and not holding a certificate
of pharmacy and permit himself, was
not himself selling or bdrtering M
toGicdting liquors indirectly, as and
within the most obvious meaning of
Sec. 2527 of thu statutes, and must
b. held liable to its penalties
No person can sell or barter the III
toxcating liquors hut the individual
person holding the certificate of
pharmacy and the SAID permit, hence
conclude, and, / think, with good
reason, that Mr., APPEL, not owning
personally $1,000 worth Of said stock
Of drugs, exclusive Of Intoxicating
liquors aud fixtures, should not have
permit issued to him on his said APP
pIlcation.
Second: The attorney general Of
this state has held and does hold, that
to be- q freeholder for all the purposes
of this act under which this applica-
ton is made, one must be the holder
of real property in the limits of the
city wherein he proposes to carry on
his business.
It has always occurred to me that
the word "freeholder," as applied to
the ownership to land, was, as it were,
a kind of rowing term; that is, 1t has
seemed reasonable to me that If one
was the owner of real property any
where in the state, or in any state
whatever, was a freeholder in the
common acceptation Of the term, and
that if, in connection with the evil
dence offered in this case it should
have been shown, that some or many
owned farms in distant part Of this
state, that he would be a qualified
petitioner under this act and this
proceeding; but when we come to
consider that this is a prohlbitory
law we are operating under, 1T would
also seem quite reasonable that such
freeholdings Of titles should be OF the
vicinage--that is, within the limits OF
the city or municipality within the
limits of which this right was to be
exercised.
I am led to think and adopt this as
the correct view Of the meaning the
legislature had in view when in pass
ed the section. The right or permit
is to be granted at the instance OF
certain persons IN city; they are the
ones who ask for it, and presumably
the ones to be benefited by it, and it
would be but just that all the httri-
butes qualifying them to become Pc
titioners for a grant of this kind
should be located, or shown to be
where they lived aud were protected
in their rights of person and property,
that, possibly, might result from the
indiscrimlnate sale OF Intoxicating
liquors. The petitioners should be
accorded an honesty Of purpose and a
desire that the prohibited article
should be disposed of, il at all, under
proper restraints Of law. hence l must
hold that the term freebooter used IN
this act, as qualifying petitioners,
should be within the limits Of the
city where the petitioners transacts
their business of druggists, and their
not having been twenty-five holders
of title to real property located in the
city of Logan, would be compelled
to deny the petition on that ground,
If no other reason existed therefor.
There are some other features OF
this case that might comment on,
that under the ruling Of the attorney
general might be weighty in the de-
termination OF this application, il
we're not for the fact that the fore
going are considered to be sufficient
basis for my action in denying this
petition.
IT, shonld he noted bv applicants