The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1900-06-26
OPINION IN OHIO
MILLER CASE

The following is the opinion in full,
handed down by Judge J. II. Burford in
the Ohio Miller liauor case from Null
hail in which the Anu-saioon -.eag1e
protested the issuance of a license to sell
liquor:
Territory Of oklahoma, District Court,
Logan county, Judges Chambers, June
%. 1900.
No. S0lS.
In the matter of the appeal on petition
Of Ohio Miller for license TO retail liquors
at Mulhall
This is an appeal from an order of the
Board of County Commissioners of Logan
county granting the application of Ohio
Miller for license to sell Intoxicating IL
quors at retail in the town of Mulhall.
The first contention of the appellants
is that the petition does not contain the
signatures of thirty resident taxpayers
of the ward in which it is proposed TO
| sell liQuors.
( On the trial before the board the pro-
/ testants admitted that the following
named petitioners were qualied signers,
| to wit:
A. b. Cony, Geo. w. Rotterman, r. e.
terman, O. w. Lobdell j. w Phillips, O.
Glfllan, G. l. Reeves. G. w. Pettijohn,
Walter Joyce, Enos Kuhlman, " Ge.ber,
j. Demster, a. r. Mcmillan, f. n. Rot
Collins, c. f. Kemp and +. n. Holt, six
teen in number. The tax rolls as shown
by the records introduced in evidence,
show that the following named petition
ers are tax payers in the town of Mulhall.
viz:
+. NJ. Blair, G. r. Mcmillan, j. j. Don
e. NJ. Blair, c. r. Mcmillan, j. j. Don
ahoe, f. L. Reeves G. b. Carson, A. G..
Hoyt, f. p. Barton, Geo. Buchels, +.
Champion, w. b. Scott S e. Norris, A.
Champion, Frank Kincaid, Chas. W.
Brown, w NJ Dennis, VIM Knipe, Jr
w. f. Combs and Moses Miller, eighteen
in number, making IN the aggregate over
thirty. l think the evidence fa rly sup
ports the finding of the board that these
persons were all residents of the sec
ond ward or district of the town Of Null
1t apears from the record that the pc
iioner offered oral testimony to prove
who of the petitioners were taxpayers
in the ward: this proc. was objected
o-by the remonstrants as not the best
evidence; the objection was overruled and
county board was erroneous but is not
available in this case for the reason that
the protestants afterwards introduced the
tax rolls. 1t is one of the primary rules
of evidence that the best evidence of
which a matter is susceptible of being
proven must be used to the exclusion OF
secondary evidence. AS a general rule
the names of taxpayers are upon the
a Ii-t-
ords are the best evidence of whether one
is tax payer and must always be re-
sorted to in such cases. If one is, in fact,
a resident of the ward and has property
therein liable to taaxt.on but which, for
any reason has been omitted or o'erlooked
have no doubt such person would be
a qualified petitioner and in such case,
there being no record evidence, the facts
m sht be shown by oral testimony. When
= 'remons trance is filed alleging that the
petitioners are not qualified the burden
is on the applicant to prove their qua in-
Clt!Grs and this can only be done by
lcGt' and competent evidence as to the
pace residence of a petitioner; it fire.
q1erty requn es the testimony Of the pc
tuCnev himself to determine such ques
ton. In other cases the fact of one.
settled as TO be capable of proof by his
ne,ehrcrs others But the question
hS 10 v etner one is a taxpayer is more
e difficult [: TIcof If he Is assessed anC
I his name appears on the tax rolls, this Il
=. Co"CiLs va evidence; on the other hand h,
1 nay tsve charge and control of more Of
3 less taxable property, and, to all out
wal a. drance, he may be the owne
Of taxable property, yet such propert!
may belong to his wife, or to his employ
trustee, guardian, executor or admin stra
tor, and when the name of such petition
or does not appear upon any record as
taxpayer the presumption is that he 4
- not liable for taxes and this fact coult
only be overcome by the testimony o
1 such petitioner himself, or other equal!
as satisfactory and positive proof.
The mex. = Intention Of protestants i
that the applicant had while doing bust
ness under former license during tn
preceding year, violated the liquor law
by obstructing his windows and doors
e Sec. 3l67 Statutes 1898. provides that
1T shall be the duty Of al venders o
. malt, spirituous and vinous liquors un
der the provisions of this act, to keel
0 the windows and doors OF their respec
tlce places of business unobstructed b!
. screens, blinds, paint or other articles
Any applicant for a license who hai