Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1906-02-21
MUST RESTORE
LIQUOR LICENSE
san -
ATALUS NlEMEYER TO AGAIN
ttf OPEN SALOON
Judge BordweIl Holds That Too
Much Pernlclous Activity Was
Shown In the Case by
the Prosecution

Through decision handed down by
Judge Bordwell in department nine of
the superior court yesterday the Los
Angeles board Of police commissioners
will be compelled to rescind their or
der of revocation of the liquor license
of Atalus Niemeyer and restore the
much desired privilege to him.
The decision does not in any way
point out the duties of the police COM
mission, and Judge Bordwell states
that he is ruling on the one circum-
stance alone that the board registered
"pernicious activity" as the only
charge against Niemeyer, when such a
charge is not contained in the charter
of the city.
The decision is in part as follows:
What Decision Contains
"This is an application Of Atalus Me
meyer for a writ of the court requir-
ing the respondents, who constitute the
board of police commissioners of the
city of Los Angeles, to certify their
records to this court for review, show
ing certain facts which now appear to
he true.
"At some time prior to the third day
of October, 1905, Henry Bestman ap
piled to the commissioners for per-
mess at 1858 Central avenue. Appar-
emily the establishment of such bus
mess in that locality by Bestman was
distasteful to Niemeyer, as he was ac-
tive in an effort to prevent the same.
1t appears that on October the appli
cation of Bestman was denied and Me
meyer was directed to appear before
the board and show cause why his Ii
cense should not be revoked for per-
nicious activity in circulating the pc
tition against Bestman.
ION October IL the commissioners
ruled that Niemeyer be given until
January 1 to remove his business, or
transfer his license. and upon failure
to do so his license stood revoked.
only one logical conclusion can be
drawn from this proceeding; to wit,
that the board revoked the license be-
cause of the pernicious activity of Me
meyer in the Bestman case.
However Objectionable may be the
conduct of a person who actively OPP
poses the establishment of a business
similar to his own on the same street,
and however pernicious it may appear,
still such activity is not a ground
specified by the charter as one on
which the board is authorized to- re-
woke a license, and indeed this is
frankly admitted by the city attorney.
Allege Pernicious Activity
''It may be that the board had suf-
ficient legal reasons for depriving the
petitioner of his privilege to conduct n
liquor business; perhaps, as a matter
of fact, they acted upon evidence which
clearly showed that the privilege
should be taken from him. If such
We're the case the record which they
made as a basis Of their action should
have accordingly shown this to be so
instead of making the record showing
the revocation to be upon the ground
of pernicious activity in an effort to
prevent the establishment of a rival
concern.
Nothing here may be construed as
to suggest that the board is
without power to revoke the petition
er's license If, in conducting his bust
ness, he disobeys the law. The court
now is simply passing upon the ques-
ton whether the action of the respond
ents was warranted by the record made
by them as the basis thereof, and 1
feel bound to conclude that it was not,
but that the record shows that they
acted without jurisdiction and that
their action in revoking the petition
er's license must be annulled.
Judgment will be entered for the
petitioner in accordance with the
views herein expressed"