The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1896-07-23

to avoid the confusion which may
arise in the future if the act OF
1896 is attempted to be invoked as
the charter of the town of Oakland,
but without in this opinion making
any analysis of the testimony in the
cause, we are of the opinion that the
petitioner is not entitled to the re-
lief sought by way of injunction.
1t is well settled in this state, at
least, that "where an ordinance is
void and its provisions are about to
be enforced, any party whose inter
estS are to be injuriously affected
thereby may and properly ought to
60 into court of equity and have
the execution of the ordinance
staped by injunction.
But we do not find that the bill
and testimony to these proceedings
establish a case where the interests
Of the plaintiff are to be"injuriously
Affected
The grayamen of the plaintiff S
petition is that, by the enforcement
Of the ordinance in question, he will
be compelled to close his hotel at
half past ten o'clock at night, and
the testimony taken is largely to the
effect that great portion of his
patronage arrives after that hour,
and If comnelled to close his
hotel at half past ten his bust
ness will be seriously affected. y
We DO not, for moment think
that a reasonable Interpretation of
the ordinance warrants such con-
struction. The ordinance is directed
at places where liquor is dispensed,
and if enforced, could only be appli-
cable to that part of the hotel where
spirltuous or fermented liquor was
sold, namely, the bar Of the hotel,
and if the bar were closed his bust
ness as hotel and summer resort
would not be seriously interterred
with.
The provisions Of the ordinance
were not to 60 into operation until
the first day Of May, and while at
the institution Of this case, the
plaintiff may have had licenses
from the state and county to sell
spIrituous and fermented liquors,
that license expired on April 3Oth.
He did not have, after May l, any
authority from state and county to
engage in the liquor traffic, from in
reference with which his right
might be affacted, and in this par
ticular the plaintiffs case differs
from that Of Woods VS.. Brooklyn,
where the relief was asked for and
granted upon the ground that the
plaintiff being an inn-keeper had a
license and authority to sell on Sun
day to dodgers and to lawful tray
+ elers, and the ordinance prohibiting
the sale of liquors on Sunday to
anyone being void. its enforcement
was restrained by injunction. Nor
is there IN the bill any allegation Of
the plaintiffs intention to take emf
a state and county license after the
first day of May, or that he is pre-
vented from doing so by the ordi-
nance IN question, or that his inter
ests are affected in that particular,
The proceedings, apart from the
bill, show that the plaintiff is not
in danger of being seriously affected
through the closing of his hotel; in
fact, the answer disclaims any in
tention on the part of the municipal
authorities to interfere with or to
attempt to regulate the hours Of
opening and closing the hotel apart
from the bar.
In view Of the case, we are of the
opinion that the plaintiff is not en-
titled to relief by way of injunction
and that the bill must be dismissed
A. HUNTER BOYD,
DAVID W. SLOAN,
EDWARD STAKE.