The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-02-14
GOO COOS PROBING.


dr.d 1902, ~
81 am not certain as TO that; but the
practice Of the board has been in case
the number OF remonstrants are respecta-
BILE In size, and reasonable grounds are
given for objecting to the granting or a
license, to refuse It, even though the OBJ
~jectors did not represent the majority. OF
the property within the two hundred feet
requirement.
Mr.. Mccarthy, at this point, told Mr..
Nixon that he would like TO have the re-
monstrance against Francis Trainor, and
Mr.. Nixon went after it. Besuming his
examination OF Mr.. Studiey, Mr.. Nc
earthly inquired among other things
whether the witness had any knowledge
of a license being granted for a location
where there was no building. and was
promptly answered In the negative.
Then came the question as to what the
rule of the board was in relation TO. the
number of licenses granted individuals.
Mr.. Studley said there was no rule on the
subject.
"some men have more than n
license?n
"Ihat is likely"
"Three or four?"
"Perhaps."
"Do you know Of any dealer who has
-four licenses?"
81 c~annot.say that / do; in fact l can
not remember one who has three"
MR.. WATERMAN ONCE MORE
Mr.. waterman-"n remonstrances come
In after a license is granted and before the
certificate is issued 10 you consider the
re-mostrances?"
"t has been the custom TO do so pre-
vious to this decision of the Supreme
Court, because the board had always
considered hat the license had not been
actually granted until the fee had been
paid, the bond filed, other conditions,
complied with and the certificate issued.
The mere vote to grant has been regarded
as one step in the proceedings and not
the final one.
Soon afterward Mr.. studley was asked
whether licenses were granted 20 appli-
cants whose applications had been pre-
sented by persons having frequent deal
ings with the board and without the
members of the board meeting the APP
plicants and he answered in the affirma-
tive.
"Suppose ! should come to the board
with an application from John Jones ana
state that he was a citizen and a proper
person to have a license; that after that
license was granted would you, in case l
came with a good pond, and the money
to pay for the license issue 1t without see
ing the principaI?"
81 think, with a man in whom the
board has as much confidence as you, the
license would be issued under those cir
cumstances.p
Mr.. Waterman wanted to know how
many licenses were asked by any N deal
er, either In his own or in the name of
Others. Mr.. Studley couldn't tell. Mr..
Waterman asked IL the number could be
90, and the answer was that II would be
ess than that.
Further questioning brought out the
statement that in the case of the Burke
transfer the board took more pains to as
certain the legal rights Of the remon-
atrants han in some other cases mention
cd. Asked whether the license was grant
ed for the place or for the man Mr.. stud
ley said ii was for the place; at least that
was the way the board regarded the mat
ter. He further said that at a meeting
when the Burke transfer and the remon-
STRANGE against 1t was brought up one
member seemed TO be particularly anxious
to have II passed, MIR. remark
ed that he wanted to look into the mat
ter OF the remonstrance TO satisfy himself
on the subject. The witness understood
that Mr.. Burnham had said afterward that
the remonstrance did not represent enough
property.
A LAWYER TEsTIFIEs.
Lawyer Mckinney was Mr.. McCarthy's
next witness. The substance of his testi-
mony was that he had been engaged by
the remonstrants from whom he learned
that the transfer had already been grant
ed. He went TO the boards Office AMI
met Mr.. Nixon and Mr.. Studley, who told
him that no action had been taken and
that If he would present circumstances
no action would be taken. He then adj
vised his clients to get up two papers, one
representing the owners or occupants of
the land within 200 feet of the Plain
street shop N another representing the
people of the neighborhood for its moral
effect. This was done N the emon-
strances were filed. These were shown
the witness and identified by him. The
first was dated December 9, but there wal
no date on the other. The witness said
hat subsequent to his talk with Com
missioners Nixon and Studiey he had as
certained that the transfer had been made
before he saw those gentlemen.
AT this point Mr.. Nixon asked that Mr..
Mckinney give the date of the converse
tion he claimed to have had with himself
and Mr.. Studley.
Mr.. Mckinney could not fix it nearer
than some time between the first and
ninth of December.
Mr.. Studley wished a more definite
statement, but Mr.. Mckinney didn't make
il. Then Mr.. Studley old the com
mittee that Mr.. Mckinney was altogether
mistaken and went on TO show why he
was.
Mr.. Mckinney then said there was no
need of any misunderstanding between
himself and Mr.. Studley. In the CONVEX
sation referred to, Mr.. Studley might not
have intended to give the impression that
the transfer had not already been grant
ed, but whether mistaken or not, he, Mr..
Mckinney, had received that impression
from their conversation.
cRoss EXAMINATION SHUT OFF.
Walter s. Mcdonald OF No. 20 Bishop
street was tie next witness. He told
the committee that he lived within 20 or
100 feet of the corner of Plain street
where Burke was given the much-talked
about license. The witness said he had
presented remonstranCes against licensing
that place in June last and again in Octo-
Der. He was asked by one of the commits
sioners whether or not the r~emonstrance
represented a majority Of the owners or
occupants of the land within"s200 feet,
and he said he couldn't tell. He was
then told to draw a diagram which he
did and presented 1t TO the board.
In October he saw Mr.. Paine and asked
him IL another remonstrance against the
Burke transfer was necessary and Mr..
Paine told him IL 1t was against an individ-
ual another remonstrance o be neces-