The daily sentinel., 1907-08-27

was a complete lot between the sa-
loon building which is located on the
north half of lots 29, 80, 81. and 80
and the Woodmen site and that Mil
Ter owned this lot and therefore the
Woodmen were not 'the adjoining
property holders. The saloon men
also held that T. F. Flucken was an
adjoining property holder, his lot
touching the saloon lot on the east.
Judge Sullivan in discussing this
phase of the question declared and
ruled that the lot contemplated in the
ordinance regarding the granting Of
saloon licenses is and must be moth
ing but plated lot of the city, show
ing on the regular plat of the city
that the ordinance does not contem-
plate or provide for any private sub
division of the plated lots or blocks
of the city. Yet the lot which the
saloon people claims adjoins the sa-
loon site lis not shown on the eity's
plat but is n privately made lot
Judge Sullivan declared that the
only thing the city council has to go
by in passing upon the lot question in
granting a saloon license is the regu-
lar plat of the city and they had no
right to pay any attention to private
subdivisions of lots unless the city
plat had been amended accordingly.
The court ruled that to permit any
body to sub-dvide lots when they
saw fit 1t would cause much confus-
ion and the city council in n case like
this. would never know whether
majority of the owners of the lots in
a half block had signed saloon
mans petition. An original lot might
be divided at any moment. The court
held that a lot in Grand Junction
must be of size specified by the city
plat.
For these and other reasons the
court held that the Woodmen We're
to the saloon site and not Mr.. Miller
and therefore the license, under the
conditions, was illegally granted.
Judge Sullivan also held and Of
fered reasons to substantiate, that
the signatures of a majority of the
owners of the original and legal lots
in the half block had not been secur-
ed to the petition. He held that T.
f. Flucken was nod an adjoining
property owner as an alley is between
him and the saloon site.
Judge Sullivan reviewed the case
at length and very comprehensively
in ruling that the saloon license was
illegally granted.
dlltl lAt htNA9ADAA 49,
rendered Attorney Sternberg, for w.
A. Lynch and company intimated that
an appeal might be taken to the dist
rict or to the state supreme court. He
was given five days to prepare an ap-
peal.
Guy V. Sternber,g representing the
defendants, and City Attorney Ro-
zelle opposed Attorney Henry r.
Rhone in his fight for the Woodmen
Investment company. 1t was quite
big victory for Mr.. Rhone.
The Woodmen Investment com
pany representing nearly nearly 400
local Woodmen, were bitterly OPP
posed to a saloon going up next to
their building site and thus the con-
test started.
Believing that they would finally
win out w. A. Lynch and Co., agreed
to lease a building from A A. Mil
Ter on the lots If he would build
same and the building is now almost
completed. 1t is a handsome one story
brick structure, The company has or
dered its fixtures and stocks and eX-
| pected to open early next month. 1t
| is reported that they will proceed To
open pending action of higher court
but it is said efforts will be made Dy
the Woodmen to prevent this.
| Few local cases have ever attract
ed more attention and the decision IS
being widely discussed.