The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-04-21
TURNED DOWN AGAIR
JUDGE KELLY REFUSES TO ISSUE
THE WRIT SOUGHT BY ID. w.
DOTY
IN THE TANKEN0FF CASE.
q COURT. THINKS 1T THE LEGAL
DUTY OF COUNCIL TO HEAR
OBJECTIONS.
EACH BRANCH OF 1T IN FACT.
nfsttnctIy Stated. TOO.That Granting
of License Rests with the City
Government.

The Christian Citizenship league did
not succeed yesterday in securing from
the district court an alternative writ
of mandamus commanding the COM
mon council to either hear the evil
dence offered in opposition to the ap-
Dlication of Mrs. Tankenoff for liquor
license. or to appear and show cause
why it should not hear such evidence.
The hearing on the order to show
cause signed by Judge Kelly Monday
afternoon took place yesterday after
noon, Assistant Corporation Attorney
Taylor appearing for the common
council and D. w. Doty representing
the REALTORS Mr.. Taylor in opposition
to the petition for an alternative writ
of mandamus, contended that the petit
ton did not show that the body au-
thorized to hear evidence on an appll-
cation for liquor license had refused
to grant such a hearing. The assem-
bly, might have refused, but the board
of aldermen had not. and therefore
the writ should not issue.
Mr. Taylor further argued that the
objections were not such as the as
sembly or common council would be
bound to hear. They were not specific
enough, and were not definitely stated.
Moreover, the common council was not
obliged to sit as a court and go
through the formula of a trial
In behalf Of the REALTORS D. w. Doty
maintained that the common council
had been constituted a court or
tribunal to hear evidence on applica-
tions for liquor licenses, and it was
its duty to hear such evidence. The
refusal of the assembly to listen to
any evidence was, in Mr.. Doty's opin-
ion, the refusal of the board of alder
men.
That Judge Kelly did not agree with
Mr.. Doty's contention appeared later
when his honor filed the following
memorandum:
State Of Minnesota, upon the relation of
Theodore G. Walther, Watson Millard Eu-
gene Moore and David Morgan, REALTORS, vs.
The Common Council of the City of St.
Paul, in the State of Minnesota, composed
of o. H. Arosin and others, respondents.
This matter came before the court upon an
order to show cause why the court should not
Issue its writ of mandamus herein prayed
for in the petition filed and for the reason
therein set forth. Now, having heard d. w.
Doty, Esq, for the REALTORS and Carl Taylor,
Esq, for the respondents, the court files the
following memorandum:
In view Of the fact that it appears that the
assembly one constituent part of what is
known as the common council of the city of
st. Paul. has passed upon the question of is
suing the license referred to in these proceed
ings, and that question is no longer before
the assembly, and that the board of aldermen
have yet to act thereon, and it appearing that
the writ by the moving paper is prayed to
issue against the joint body known as the
common council and not against either of its
constituent parts, l am constrained to deny
the writ.
But in doing so. it is proper to say that
in my opinion, it is clearly the legal duty Of
both the assembly and the board of aldermen
where objections properly made to the
issuance of the license to sell Intoxicating
liquors, to afford reasonable opportunity for
the directors to be heard before each body
and to that end to hear, within bounds testi-
mony tending to. sustain rebut the
charges.
l think these charges should be fairly spe-
cific. Not so particular as a pleading but
sufficiently so that the person accused may
be reasonably apprised of what they consist.
To hold that either body of the coon
council arbitrarily refuse to hear the
charges and evidence to sustain them would
be to deny to the citizen the right given by
the statute to object
In making this ruling / desire to be distinct
ly understood that with the final determine
ton of any question as to the issuance or re-
fusal to issue a license after hearing the
charges and testimony this court has no
jurisdiction to interfere. The common council
is charged by the law with the duty of de-
termining these questions, and with the ex-
ercise of the discretion vested in the council
by the law this court will never interfere
William Louis Kelly
District Judge.