The San Francisco call., 1896-05-05
SAN LORENZO
IS OUTRAGED,
Supervisors Ignore the Pleas
of Eighty Wives and
Mothers.
CAN GET NO RELIEF.
District Attorney Church Says
Mistakes Cannot Be
Corrected.
FRAUD HAS BEEN PROVED
But the License Having Been Granted
Cannot BE Revoked or
Reconsidered.

Rh4t IOLbG4fAOy NAA's VudJ A0
town of San Lorenzo considers that it
has been outraged. All its wives, sis
ters and mothers petitioned the Board of
Supervisors not to grant liquor license to
the lessee OF the Grove. In spite OF their
efforts the license was granted and it was
proved that the signatures to the petition
had been procured by fraudulent misrep-
reservations.
The Grove is q picnic resort, and on seve-
raj occasions there have been disgraceful
scenes on Sundays that have necessitated
the presence of extra police. The inhabi-
tants of the quiet little town resent such
unplessantness being forced upon them,
and to-day the District Attorney decided
that there IS no hope for them and that
the Supervisors cannot revoke license
once granted. He says:
Gentlemen-In re Bormann license, your
honorable body has submitted to me for my
opinion the question as to whether or not the
action of the board in granting one Bormann
license may be reviewed aud rescinded by
them In the event that, subsequent to the
granting OF said license, 1t should appear that
one OF the signatures to the petition for per-
nit was invalid, by reason of the fact that the
said signature was not a genuine signature of
the party purporting TO sign the petition.
1t would seem from q recent decision of the
Supreme Court, decided in the case of Belser
VS.. Hotfschneider, 104 Cal, 461, that the
board would not have the power to review or
rescind its action in the matter, the same be-
ing judicial and no procedure existing for
such review. In the case above cited the Su-
Preme Court on the subject uses the following
Languages:
"The general rule is that where special juris-
dictlon is conferred upon court or board to
determine certain specified controversies and
no provision is made for review by such
tribunal OF its judgments, when it has once
determined the matter It's jurisdiction is ex-
q m at tor 10 sri sinh if1ni
no doubt the tribunal may reconsider its &C.
ton; but when final judgment has been en-
tered the board is functus oficio."
AS the granting OF the license would be the
final act of the board upon the petition for
permit the jurisdiction of the board would be
exhausted upon such action being taken, con-
sequently, under the above rule, laid down by
our Supreme Court, 1t would be impossible for
the board TO take further or any action in
this proceeding, and the only remedy in the
premises would be an application to the co urts
either to review by certiorari, or by equit-
able action to set aside the proceedings OF the
board.
The facts of the case as shown from the
records of the board are as follows: Bor-
mann fled an application with the board
September 80, 1895, for permit to secure
liquor license and to conduct a bar at
San Lorenzo Grove, picnic grounds owned
by the Oakland, San Leandro and Hay
wards electric road. The immediate res
idents protested and showed the ap-
plication was not signed by the five near
est freeholders and heads of families, as
provided in the liquor license ordinance.
The application was withdrawn October %.
A month later. November 25, Bormann
came before the board second time, but
the protestants had been made aware of
his intended action and week later, De-
cember z, compelled its second withdrawal
owing to a second strong protest on the
same grounds. Two weeks later Bormann
came in the third time, but was forced to
withdraw again by the residents show
ing that the application yet lacked the
proper signatures. In all of these three
cases he took an oath that the signers
were duly qualified by the law to be on the
application.
Mr.. Bormann took rest after these ef-
forts until March 80, 1896. when he came
in with his fourth petition. This fact be-
ing published the residents again rose in
their might and protested at the meeting
held April 6. Rev. g. T. McCollum being
present claimed that one OF the signatures
was of a man residing in Haywards and
registered there, SO that under no inter-
pretation could the man be claimed to be
a resident of San Lorenzo.
E. B. Stone, one of the directors of the
electric road, appeared and urged action
on the ground that the delay was injuring
the profits of his company as certain or
carnations would not lease the park for
Sunday picnics until they knew there
would be license. He claimed that the
signature was all right and would be
shown to be so later, and that all the pro-
testants wanted was to keep them out as
long as possible so as to injure their busi-
ness.
1t is an unwritten rule of the board that
whenever there is protest to any pro-
posed action it shall fix day when all in
terested parties shall have hearing. In
this case, however. thev rushed lesolu-
ton through granting the permit without
ever allowing protestants to prove their
allegations or even letting them know
that action would be taken. One of the
protests was signed by eighty mothers,
wives and sisters.
Rev. Mr.. McCollum went home dis
gusted, but determined that he would
show the citizens of the county he had not
made any assertions or statements that
were not true. He went to the man whose
residence had been questioned and was
surprised to find that the man had never
signed the application or authorized the
signature; further the man made affidavit
to the fact and also that he was and had
been a resident of Haywards for six
months.
A visit made to his daughter showed
that Bormann had presented himself at her
house as poor man with large family
in need and requested her to sign her
fathers name so that he could secure
control of the grove during the summer
and thus assist himself. She claimed he
never mentioned a liquor license, saloon
or anything else to make her believe. that
she was assisting man to get liquor
license. She had put this in the form of
an affidavit, and they were both presented
to the board one week later, April Is.
Supervisor Church was highly indignant
and demanded that hearing be held, as
reproach had been cast on Mr.. Bormann,
who should be given hearing. The
matter went over one week.
The minutes of the board for Monday,
April 20, show tnat the matter was laid
over two weeks 'tin order that the District
Attorney might have an oVportunity to
ascertain the legal status of the case and
whether or not the action OF the board in
granting permit was valid, or whether,
in view of the facts of the case, the permit
could be rescinded and the prayer of the
protestants granted"