The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-04-13
Black Creek Liquor Deal
~ers Lose Their Case.
LOWERCOURTIN ERROR
Courts Cannot Control County Commits
sioners in Granting Liquor Ii
censes, Can Only Compel
Them to Act if They do
Not Act at all.

Inc county commissioners OF wilson
will not have to grant license 20 the
Black Creek liquor dealers. The Supreme
Court yesterday decided that Judge Fred
Moore was in error when he ordered the
Board to direct the sheriff to issue the
licenses. or else show cause why a writ
OF peremptory mandamus should not be
issued against them.
The opinion is by Associate Justice
Piatt d. Walker. and it holds that the
courts cannot control the County Commits
sioners in the granting of licenses b.
mandamus. They can only compel then,
to act when they refuse to act and to
exercise their discretion. but cannot COM
rand them to issue license to any particu-
lar person. F
II holds further that the Watts law does
not change the law regarding the issuing
OF licenses. which has been the same
ever since the case of the Attorney Gen
eral against the Justices CT Guiiford, in
the 47tif n. c. s,ee
The appeals came up in three cases,
Howell Bridgefs and Barnes, each against
the commissioners of Wilson. and in each
case the action is dismissed. that is the
action Of the liquor dealers against the
commissioners.
The plaintiff brought action TO have
issued a writ of maDdamus requiring the
Commissioners of Wilson county to grant
him a license to retail LIQUORS. 1t seems
that at an election in Black Creek. under
the Watts law. held on October 10Th.
1908. a majority of the votes We're cas-;
in favor OF the sale of liquor, and that
in the following January the plaintiff ap-
piled TO the town commissioners of Black
Greek for license to sell liquors for SIX
months. which license was granted. After
wards an application was made by hin
10 the County Commissioners for an order
upon the sheriff to issue license to the
plaintiff to retail liquors in Black Creek.
He alleges that he showed his license
from the town commissioners and the
necessary afiidavits CT six freeholders as
to his being a proper person and as TO
the suitableness of the place at which he
proposed to conduct his business. His
application was refused by vote OF
three tn two. He claimed that no EVIL
dence was introduced Before the Board
to show that he was not a proper person
10 sell nQuOT, or Indl the Didce was Ilol
suitable, and that the majority of the
Board did not exercise their discretion,
but arbitrarily refused to grant license to
all parties who applied for license to sell
liquor in other Incorporated towns of SAID
county. He payei for mandamus from
TIE Superior Court 70 compel the County
Commissioners to order the sheriff to
issue a license to sell liquor at the place
designated.
Tho Comfy Commissioners admitted
the allegation of The complaint. except
that the majority Of The Board did not
exercise their discretion. and denied that
they arbitrarily refused to grant license.
The Beard further stated that the appli-
cation of each one of the plaintiffs was
investigated at length and voted upo.,
separately. and that the Board believed
that the law imposed upon it the duty and
responsibility OF granting or refusing to
grant all licenses to retail liquor and
that the law further imposed upon it the