The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-01-19
THE REVOKED LICENSES
Not To Be Transferred, Says
Judge Hanckel.
THE COURTS POSITION.
He Lays the Axe At Root Of Tree.
The Decision Batch of Pthy,
Pointed and Pungent. Para
graphs. Text of the
Decision.

Judge Heuckel yesterday render.
ed a decision in the Atlantic CITY
revoked liquor licsnse case, ruling
that revoked license was not Trans.
ferrable.
The readers of The VIRGISIAN will
semember that the liquor license OF
M. Enrlght was revoked for viola
ton of the law. Acting upon the
opinion Of the former Judge of tho
Corporation Court. who had re
peatedly decided that there was
property right in license which
conld not be taken away and was
transferable, MIR. Enright came for
ward and by his attorney, MIR. Til
ton, claimed whatever property
there was in the license, aud asked
that the Same be transferred TO q
person acceptable to the court.
The people of Atlantic City re-
slstcd the application, argument
was heard, and with all The light DO
fore him that the legal umluaries
could shed. Judge Hanckel has
made his decision and gave his
resons in the following pithy,
THE DECISION.
The Judge sRid: This ia al applica.
tion made to tho Court by Nj. Eu-
right TO be allowed to transfer a bar.
room license heretofore granted to
him by this court, and subsequently,
revoked by the same authority; an
application, In short, to transfer q
revoked license to sell Intoxicating
liquors.
The contention OF the petitioner,
Enrlght, ia, that the revocation by
the court of his license to sell liouor
operates IN this case only to recall
the certificate OF the court that he
Is proper person to conduct such
business, Without deprlving him of
The power to transfer his rights IN
deg that license to some other per
son whom the court may ASCERTAIN
TO be tit person to transact such
business at that or some other sulta-
BILE place; or, IN other words, that.
IN addition TO the personal privilege
conferred on him by that license,
there lDheres in the license q con
tract, or property right, which can
not be revoked in the Summary pro-
cedure prescribed by the statute and
pursued by the court in the revoca.
tion of this license.
Inc satisfactory solution OF the
question raised by this petitioner
involves An inquiry into
THE TRUE NATURE OF A LICENSE
TO sell intoxicating liquors.
This inquiry is not difficult, nor
need 1t he lengthy. The statute of
virginia is only declaratory OF the
common law, when it states ia ey
press terms that "a license shall he
held to confer personal privilege"
and, without entering into an in
Testlgatlon as to whether, III certain
cases, certain licenses may be some
thing more than privileges, a nd NAV.
nnder certain circumstances, oopstl
tute contract with incidental prom.
erty rights between the State and
the license, it is only necessary for
The proper decision of this case 10
anqulre whether or not license to
sell Intoxicating liquors is priv
Iege and a privilege only, falling
within the general police power OF
the State, and not a subject OF con.
tract between the State and The Inc.
enses.
The precise question raised by
the petitioner has never been passed
upon by our Supreme Court OF an.
peals, but, in recent case, inyol
wing statutory repeal OF tho rioh.
10 operate lottery. under o char
ter formerly granted by the Legs.
latnfe, tJusilce's case. 81 Va. %.
2o5, tue Court, through Lewis,
President, says.
CLEARLY THE PRIVILEGE
10 conduct lottery ia NO. O subject
Tor contract, but falls within the
police power of the State, and ia
subject to the control of the Lepjs.
lnture. 1t ia ON FL.
ground that statutes repeating prior
statutes granting the privilege TO
sell Intoxicating liquors have been
held to be valid. a case in point 10
metropolitan Board of Excise We
Barrie, "a N. Y, Coz. .Tneae +,
ceoses to cell liquor. said the Cont
In that case, ARE not contracts ba.
tween the State and the person
Licensed, giving the latter vested
sighta protected on general ps.nci.