The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1898-05-04
RETAIL LIQUOR LICENSE
AN IMPORTANT DECISION BY THE ST.
PREME COURT
County Commissioners Can Refuse to Grant
Liquor License. Without Giving any
Reason for Their Action.


The Supreme Court yesterday handed
down an important decision touching the
granting of LIQUOR license 10y County
Commissioners.
In the case of j. A. Mathis VS.. Com
missioners of Duplin county, it is held
that the Commissioners may, in the eN-
ereise of their discretion, refuse u
grant retail liquor license to an appli-
cant without assigning any reasons for
the refusal, and in such case their action
is not reviewed by the court. This was
an action of mandamus to compel the
Commissioners of Duplin county to grant
an order to the sheriff to issue Il license
70 n dealer in Magnolia to retail liquor.
The ease upon which the decision turns
is that Of Muller VS.. Commissioners, 50
y. c., III That case arose when the
| law Code, Section BOD said that
| County Commissioners shall grant the
order to all properly qualified applicants,
who had complied with the requirements
! The court Judge Ashe writing the opIn-
| ion, ruled in that case that the Com
miSsiOners do not possess the arbitrary
power of suppressing retailing III toto,
nor are they bound to grant license, al
though the applicant proves good
moral character. They have Il limited
legal discretion and may consider MI
/ questions and matters which pertain to
the welfare of the community.
Now the Legislature in 1897 Qaws Of
1897, chapter 16S, section 34 amends
the preceding act Code, Section BOD
! by substituting the words may grant
! for shall grant," when the applicant
has complied with the required pro-
visions of the act.
/ Opinions were handed down by the
Supreme Court yesterday afternoon as
follows: ~
State VS.. Perry, from Wake. error.
State VS.. Hedgepeth, from Franklin,
affirmed.
Mcleod VS.. Williams, from Robson,
error.
Mathis vs. Commissioners, from Du-
pin, affirmed.
Frsbec VS.. town of Marshall. error
Norton VS.. McDevit, from Madison,
new trial.
Berry VS.. Railroad. from Buncombe,
error.
State VS.. Ballard, from BERTHE, affirm
ed. -
Latta VS.. Bell. trustee, from Meek
lenburg, affirmed.
Latta VS.. Amer. from Mecklenburg,
affirmed
Latta VS. attaching creditors. affirmed.
Andrews VS.. Jones, from Buncombe,
error.
Bank VS.. Loughran, from Buncombe,
new trial.
Doubleday VS.. Ice Company, from
pmcombe, affirmed.
/ Russell VS.. Hill, from Swain, now trial.
Allen VS. Hammond. from Madison,
dismissed for defective record.
Sims VS.. Lindsay, from Buncombc,
now trial.
Chatfed VS.. Struggled, from Hay
wood motion TO docket and dismiss
plaintiffs appeal. allowed under rule II.
Henry VS.. billiard, motion to retax
costs allowed.
| Everett VS.. Shuler. from Swain, af-
frmed.
Twelfth district appeals argued yestcr-
day:
Commissioners of BuncOmbe v Payne,
argued by Avery. Moore and Mark NJ.
Brown for plaintiff; Battle for defend
ant.
Davis Y. Long, continued.
Tate V. Commissioners. ahnded mp on
briefs Of Smathers for plaintiff, and
Crawford for defendant.
Cooper V. Wyman and Boyle, handed
mp on briefs of Davidson, Jones and
Sandley for defendant.
Henry V. Hillard; Cobb by brief for
defendant.
Jones V. Rhea, argued by Adams.
Carter and Jones and Boykin for plain
tiff: w. j. Pccle for defendant.
Bingham School V. Gray, argued by
]. w. Graham for plaintiff; f. S. Blair.
r. o. Burton, r. r. Gray for defend
ant. The argument in this case will
be resumed this "wednesday morn
ing.