The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-12-26

sAs hEVOKE LICENSES.
Supreme Court Upholds the
Law Giving Excise
Boards That Power.
NEWARK's CELEBRATED CASE
Proprietor Of Caledonia Park Sold
Beer on Sunday-Principal
Points Of the Decision.
IEWARE'S CELEBRATED CASE
specsat 10 the .zeasep cttp Nssas.

Lee %, 1eJo.-5u StiteS ~
mere fled an opinion in the Supreme
Court. Wednesday. dismissing the GER
tiorari proceedings in the case Of GUS
tav K voight, proprietor OF CaledoIian
Park, Newark, against the Newark
Board Of Excise. The opinion s~ustains
the Board in its action pertaining 10 the
revoking Of voight's license on account
of his selling beer on Sunday. The case
was argued at the last term of Court be-
fore Justices Gummere and Depue.
Samuel KaIisch appeared for the apr
plleant and William 3. Guild and E. l.
Price for the Board.
Weight, the applicant. held a license
from the Board. Proceedings were X
: by the Board looking to the revocation
Of the license, and the Supreme Court
was asked to allow a writ Of certiorari
removing the proceedings to the Court
for review on the ground that they were
without warrant of law.
The proceedings challenged consisted
Of a written complaint made by three
persons claiming to be residents and
legal voters of Newark, verified by the
oath Of the compliments. On informa-
ton and belief. alleging that voight had
sold beer on Sunday.
The principal ground Of challenge was
that these proceedings did not comply
with the tenth section of An act to
regulate the sale Of liquors, etc. This
section provides that if a person offers
for sale any spirituous, vinous or brew
ed liquors on Sunday, his license shall
be forfeited; and, also, that upon COM
plaint Of any three legal voters of the
community, verified by their paths. pre-
scented to the body granting the license,
alleging that the license had become for
feited, and specifying the acts alleged
to have worked such forfeiture, the
body granting the license should order
the party accused to appear and show
cause why the license should not be
revoked.
The opinion first disposes of a prelira-
mary question raised by the applicant,
Insisting that the statutory provision re-
ferred to was unconstitutional The ar
2ument in his connection was based
upon the contention that a license IS
property, that it cannot be taken away
from the holder except by a judicial pro-
ceeding, and that such a proceeding is
not provided by the statute. 1t was
further commended that if the proceeding
provided for by the tenth section be con-
sidered a judicial pne, then the provision
is unconstitutional, because the Board of
Excise commissioners is a ministerial
body, and the constitution prohibits such
a body from exercising judicial overs.
The Cour does not think that either
of these contentious is well founded. 1t
says that a license is in no sense prop
erty. 1t is a mere temporary permit 10
do what otherwise would be Illegal, is
sued IN the exercise OF the police power.
Counsel did not deny that this was the
general rule but argued that since the
passage of the act which authorized
transfer any license granted by them. a
Observation-Disclosures is property.
T9neerning this the opinion says
Why the fact that a license may now
be transferred in his State converts ii
from a mere privilege into a property
Tigat counsel does not tell US. nor have
| peen able to perceive, and I have there
fore concluded that the Contention has
nothing to rest upon.
IS there any merit in the lain
tnaI The Legislature annot confer upon
the Board of Excise Commissioners power
TO investigate alleged violations Of the
excise laws by a person holding a license
from them. and to revoke such license if
they find that the law has been violated >
me Court therefore holds the act to be
constitutional.
In respect to the validity of the nra-
ceedings themselves the opinicn dis
cusses the contention that proceedings
iof the revocation of a license can be
Drought only after the Indictment. trial
and conviction of the offender IN the
criminal courts for such violation.
Inc argument in support Of this promo
sa.lon was that unless this was done the
tenth section is Unconstitutional for the
reason that it authorizes the conviction
o. a person of a crime without affording
him a trial by jury.
The only other objection raised n tho
validity of the proceed sngg which the
court considers of sufficient importance
70 merit decision is that the afFiaavit
annexed to the complaint merely states
that the matters and things contained
IN it are true to the best Of the knowl-
edge and belief of the atlantis that such
a. Veru1catlon Is not a compliance with
the statutory reClfremHnfG and fhnf
consequently, the Board had no right
70 entertain the complaint or proceed
thereon.
The opinion admits that the complaint
does not fulfill the requirements Of
the statute and has no probative force
ana cannot form the foundation for the
proceedings authorized by the tenth sec
flon of the act of March 20, 1889.
But notwithstanding this view the
court holds that the application fer eer-
tlorari should be denied because by a
subsequent act it was enacted f4that the
excise board or board Of excise commits
sloners OF any CITY of this State shall
be authorized and empowered in their dis
erection TO transfer or revoke any license
granted by them
The syllabus says
The 10th section Of the act Of March 20.
1883 General Statute D.. 1879, regulating
the sale CT intoxicating liquors. provides
that If the holder Of q License ehalI permit
Intoxicating liquors to be sold upon his
premises contrary to law. his license shall
thereby become forfeited, and that UPON
complaint of any three persons, residents
and legal voters OF the municipality
wherein Suca license g used and exercised,
verified by the oata7s Of such eofnDIaine
snts, being presented to the body watch
granted the license, alleging that such IL
sense has become ferfeited. end specify
Ig the acts complained OF which shall 6e
alleged to have worked sueh forfeiture. ii
shall be the duty of such body to pro-
eesd to an Investigation.
Held, That this statutory provision Il
not in comtraveation OF The constitutional
provision preserving the right Of trial by
Inry, and that tbs licensing body h9s 4
right to proceed under 1t with0as WAITING
until the holder Of the license has been
Indicted and convicted.
Held, further, RIA the AFFIDAVIT verify