The San Francisco call., 1898-07-30
Tamalpais Company At tempts to Take Away
 Their Land.
BECAUSE LIQUOR WAS SOLD
TT WAS WINKED AT BY THE
 PLAINTIFF FOR YEARS.
Defendants Will Make Hot Fight in Court to Have the Proviso Declared Null and
 Void.

Three suits brought last Friday in Sar Rafael by the Mt. Tamalpais Land and Water Company have made the air of the picturesque Mill Valley grow hot with contention, and all the indications point to a fierce legal battle on the part of the defendants.
 They are Lottie E. Bundy, John H McInnes and Dora Landgraf, all of whom bought land from the company years ago and were given the usual deeds contain ing a proviso that the purchaser should not sell any intoxicating liquor on the lands so deeded until the year 1900. The penalty for the violation of this provisc was stated to be the reversion of the lands with all the tenements, heredita- ments, etc, thereon. The complaints of the company allege that the defendants have violated the agreement in the deeds by selling liquor or allowing it to be sold and ask that the court adjudge that the property revert to the company
 There are many sidelights to the suit that will make much interesting reading when the cases come to trial. It Is stated on behalf of the defendants that there are dozens of persons on the land who are and who have been for years openly selling liquor In defiance of the proviso in the deed, and that the reason why the company has not filed suit against them is because of desire to discriminate against the defendants for the benefit of the other violators of the agreement.
 It will be urged that the violation of the agreement on the part of the de- fendantS in these three cases did not work any injury whatever to the com pany because a large number of other persons have been tacitly permitted by the company to sell liquor on its grounds. IL Will be urged further that the com pany, sued McInnes about four years ago for the same purpose, and because of the same alleged violation of the proviso in the deed and then dropped the suit, from which time Mc1nnes has been selling liquor openly and with the knowledge and implied consent of the plaintiff in the suits. This fact will be urged as a laches on the part of the plaintiff and 1t will be construed as an implied agreement on the part of the company to cancel the anti-liquor proviso.
 The defendants will show also that the inn at the summit of Mt. TamalpaiS on the land Of the company has a bar and a drug store and several hotels in Mill Valley do the same. They will show that for years, as now, the visitor could get wine or other liQuors with his chicken dinner at Prince Charities" and at other resorts, and that the company by wink ing at those violations has revoked the proviso. They will point also to the sig picked out for prosecution and that the other offenders have been allowed to con tinue to sell liquor without any attempt at concealment.
 One Of the defenses to be made will be that the proyiso Is contrary to public pol icy. and Is, therefore, null and void This matter has never been tested in Califor- nia, but test cases have been made in several other States, and in most in- stances the provisos in the deeds have been declared invalid on general prin- ciples, while in almost every case in which, like the one at bar. the grantor of the real estate has permitted the proviso to be violated and has failed as in this case, to diligently prosecute all offenders, the courts have decided that the proyiso has been cancelled by implication.
 In the meantime, as In the past, the tourist who visits Mill Valley will never get black in the tongue for want of some thing stimulating to moisten 1t with.