The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-05-04

industry, and this would in effect render
rugatory the statute law OF the State al
lowing license for the sale Of liquor. Inls,
ruani1estly, would transcend the proper
functions Of the court.
LEGAL BASIS IDEA.
We are brought back. therefore, to the
oEly sound and legal basic idea that can
govern in such cases-namely, that the
proximity of the place OF the proposed
sale of liquor to the business in question
must be such that the employees. while
engaged in the business or in going to
and from to engage in such business, are
brought in contact with the liquor, and
are thus caused to drink more than they
would otherwise Go. to render a place an
unsuitable place on this ground. l do not
think that tho sale of liquor at Louisa
il, in such proximity to the mines men
toned.
Now, as to the sale of liquor at the
pace, OF the applicant at Louisa affect
Ing: other business, property or personal
rights:
There has been some testimony tending
in this direction, but it has not been Of
that definite and positive character that
the law requires. and the preponderance
of testimony has certainly been to the
contrary.
20 particular piece of property or bust
ness mas pGe0 SHOWN TO De Ser lOuSlE VI
Immediately affected by the sale Of liquor
at said place. The business NON in 90
who have testified have failed to show
the slightest injury to any business in
town. No pecuniary loss whatever has
been shown by any business outside OF
the town other than the mines.
AS to property, Mr.. Richardson, Mr.
Williams. and Mr.. McComb We're the only
witnesses bearing upon this question Mr..
Richardson testified that if his house had
been built nearer the road he would have
suffered injury. Mr. Williams testified
that he personally would not give as much
for the parsonage property as he WOULD
if liuuor were not sold here. but he does
not show that the parsonage property
IS desired by him as a purchase or that
i, is for SALE or that it. could not be sold
to some one else for its full value. MI.
McComb testified that he considered the
value of his property rear town affected.
but in stating the valuation he now puts
upon it, namely. that he would take what
it cost him and all he had put on it in
improvements and labor-a return that
few can hope to receive from property
anvwhcre-he evidenced that there has
heen no serious injury to his property
And besides. he himself stated that he
smoke from his point of view of personal
objection to seeing men under the infu-
ence of LIQUOR. and that all did not re-
gard the matter as ne did. And he did
not show that the market value of his
| property is less because Of the sale of
| liquor at Louisa.
Over agafns. the testimony Of these
| witnesses thece was the testimony Of q
| greater number TO the effect that prop
| e,ty in Louisa had not deprecated In
| value from any cause but had anDre-
| Gated and Is much sought after and al
! most Impossible to get.
RIGHTS OF PERSCII.
| AS to the rights Of person of the mem
hers of, the community of Louisa and
| round about
| There was testimony OF a more definite
| Character as to this, some of it showing
| disturbance that should not exist. and
| which l am satisfied, if they were 20
continue, would compel the court I" re-
| fuse license here; l am also satisfied.
| however. from the testimony, that such
! Of this as was the cause from the sale
of liquor al Louisa and would be absent
| il it were not sold here, IS rather to be
| attributed to the effects of the tim1dity
/ of orr former sole sergeant and will not
| be repeated under the present adm nistra-
ton or that of any other fearless officer.
Some of this disorder is inseparabie
| from any large concourse of people, as
on court days, and the disagrceable in
! cidcnts to which Mr.. Johnston's family
| have been exposed, in view Of the ioca-
| ton Of his residence, might we'll happen
| on any court day from parties intoxicated
with liquor brought with them here. even
| If no liquor was sold at this place
In the matter Of injury 10 personal
| rights therefore I can lay hold on moth
! ing in the testimony in this case that
| DISTINGUISHES the place in question here
from any other public place in the
/ county. in the eyes of the law, as to
| its suitability for the sale of liquor. I'm
! less I had the power to refuse license 1t
1nf
! ground l could refuse it here.
| 1t has baen suggested that because it
| is The Courthouse of the county and SO
| many people resort to the place, 1t is on
tina. account unsuitable. This may be
from a moral standpoint but there is an
entire absence OF any provision in the law
| OF Virginia mat license is not to be
| granted at very public place. know
al no reason in The law rendering any
| place unsuitable for the sale of liquor,
| unless It's location is such that its proS-
imity4 makes the sale Of liquor there OF
material injury to personal business OF
property rights
HOTEL OWNERS.
Now as to the interest of the Hote
owners involved in this matter. Tha,
interest is 81 ma teriaI interest and must
/ have its due consideration in any cas-:
by any court before it would take any
action that. would affect such interest
Just as II would bear III mind the materla
interests OF any and all other citizens
1t would be considered that the Hote
owners have paid valuable consideration
FOR what is known as The RESTRICTIONS
that the citizens of the town have made
their residence and acquired propert!
here with full knowledge OF such rights
and the property owners by taking it'll
have acquiescad in sucn rights. al! of tn
would be considered and given its prope
weight in a case where it was necessar!
to do SO 1t is true that the creates
good to the greatest number is the cardi
nal rule of action on all public questions
but this does not give the community il
every case the right to take privat
property for public te-cit without du
81 compensation. And it cannot but strik
the conscience of any court that il sucl
q state of affairs should exist as that TIL
well being of the town and communit
required that the restrictions should
abolished. the fair and equitable thin
for he town and community to do woul
be. to buy and pay for the restrictions
and thus eNtinguish them However
!, this is the mere opinion of the court an
| . ~, a - ~;