The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-05-27
LIQUOR DECISION
l y. tbs Very Complicated Princess Anne
Hall License Case,
WAS 4! HANDED. DOWN 8Y JUDGE PREnI!S

Yesterday, After n long Considern.
ton of tho Evidcnce-IIc Carefully
Reviews the FHets, Recites tho Law
and Declares that There Is SO Gnr
10 tho Issue of 70 License.
Judge Prentis. Of the Circuit Court,
yesterday handed down the following In
teresting decision in the Princess Anne
liquor. case: 5#s
In Vacation-CircuIt Court Of Princess
Anne> county, on the goth day Of May,
1897 2'
William H. Ackiss and others, Appellants
T. Edmund Krumbholz, Appellee.
Upon All appeal from judgment of the
County Court Of Princess Anne coun-
ty. pronounced April 20. 1897, granting
the appellee license to keep an orGli-
nary at Virginia Beach.
It Is admitted that the applicant has
complied with all the requirements of
the law. and Is entitled to license, I'M
less debarred by the local option election
held September 30. 1886.
For the appellants 1t Is claimed that
there was It that election majority oc
SIX votes against licensing the sale Of
Intoxicating liquors In Seabonrd Magis-
terial district. IN which district the ap-
pelant's place Of business is located.
.For the appellant 1t Is commended:
!. Ihat the votes cast ut the said cleo
ton have never been legally canvassed,
ana that no proper return has been made
70 the county clerk showing the result
OF the election according to law.
z. That the writ Of election Is fatally
defective. in that It violates section 26.
article VI. OF the State Constitution, re-
quiring writs 10 run in the name Of the
Commonwealth Of Virginia, and be at
tested by the clerks OF the several
courts.
3. That there Is no record Of the action
OF the county judge ordering the cleo
ton on the order book Of the County
Court Of Princess Anne county.
there are many other Irregularities
charged, but the case was argued and
submitted without reference to any
others except those just mentioned.
SO that am to determine whether or
not there has been a valid local option
election In Seabnnrd MngiSterial district
III the first place, It is well to advert to
certain we'll established doctrines and
PRINCIPLES proper to be considered in
determining the question at issue, name
ly: 7'1 80.
In an organized state OF society, the
power Of ma jority to bind the minority
by popular vote depends upon The fact
that the elections are held by some legal
authority
There is no inherent reserved power
IN the people to hold elections: they are
therefore OF no effect, unless held by
virtue OF some law In force when the
election was held"
In cases where certain officers have
the authority to call special elections for
PARTICULAR purposes, upon certain condi-
! tlons, 1t seems to be held that such con-
dltions are jurisd.ctional in their char
acter, and that the records, or q,lasl
recoros or the officers. must show that
such lconultlons were performed, in or
Ger 10 give any authority to call the
erection" C Am. & Eng. Encyc Of Law
293 29i, $3.50 n,
1t is we'll settled in this State that or
an application for a liquor license, the
applicant may prove such Irregularities
| IN ,he conduct OF a local option election
by parol evidence. as to void 1t, and en-.
| tille nm TO license, Notwithstanding
such election. (Haddox VS.. County O.
G!arke 70 Virginia 677 Chambers vs.
Tunk q VirginlaL ri. In re Moore de
c.deu ny Judge Whittle at Roanoke
March ., 1S94)
| Now 10 return to the points made by
the appelant's counsel against the va.
i1di>y Of election involved in the case al
bar: =
]. do not regard the first point as vel
taken 1t rs true that legal canvass OF
! the votes by the commissioners IF cleo.
l y y,
| lnasmuch IL the commissioners in q
chancery suit brought 10 avoid the cleo.
tion, were restrained from canvassinc
| the returns and certifying the result. BY
the lrjunction order OF the Judge OF Tie
Hu9tinss Court OF Portsmouth, and ;ht
| questions raised by the bill have never
poem determined or even prosecuted
this state VI facts furnishes no stuff.
clent reason for ignoring the cllinis OF
the appellants that e legal local option
election was held, with the result. claim.
| ed by them. Their claim Is apparently
| sustained by the returns II the appli.
cant We're to be injured by this delay
! MS remedy would be to make himself @
party TO that suit, and prosecute it TO q
nearing. Ills rights would be settled by
| the ultimate decision Of the case. he
should not be allowed to enjoy the bene-
ut OF that proceeding without. being re.
! CURED TO take up it's burden. That
burden is to prove the allegations Of the
| BILL
z The question raised as to the validi-
| ~ OF the writ Of election is harder to
solve. The statute, section bS1 Of the
Code makes writ Of election necessa-
ry The Constitution Of Virginia requires
| wits to run In the name of the Com
| monwealth Of Virginia, and be attestcd
| by the clerks OF the several courts" "
| just as writs at common law ran In the
| name Of the sovereign, so now, with us,
they run in the name Of the State-the
| sovereign. That is, they are O com
mand OF the sovereign power The usual
form Is The Commonwealth OF Virginia
TO the Sheriff bf -- County. Greet.
Ing: We command you, &C." That is to
say, the Commonwealth of Virginia