The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1907-06-11
LIQUOR LICENSES
MY Be GRANTED BY MUNIcl.
PAL LICENSE COURT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APP.
PEALs HOLDS THAT MUNIcI.
PALlTlEs MAY ACT INoEPENp.
EMILY or COUNTY BODIES yN.
DER PROPER CHARTER PROV.
sIoNs = JUDGES MILLER AND
mewHoRTER DISSENT FROM
OPINION.
CHARLESTON. June 1.-THE Su.
preme Court Of Appeals Of West Vir.
ginia at Wheeling Saturday divided
3 10 ., Judges Miller and McWhorter
dissenting, held that municipalities,
under proper charter provisions, had
the right TO grant liquor licenses In.
dependent Of county bodies, practical.
" reversing former decision Of the
court. The decision of the court was
rendered In the case of the State OF
West Virginia against John Harden, OF
Point Pleasant.
The decision Is the most important
rendered by the court for some time,
as II affects several cities Of the
State, but particularly Point Pleas.
ant where strife has relgRea since
the former decision Of the court
about April list, since which time
the town Of Point Pleasant has been
dry owing TO. the refusal Of the
county court of Mason county to grant
licenses within the town. II Is re-.
garded as being of vast Importance
as Il decides the constitutionality Of
the law which allows the municipall.
ties 10 grant liquor licenses, when SO
provided In the city charter, independ.
ent of the county court.
Among the principal cities affected
under the conditions that would have
existed had the court held otherwise
are Clarksburs, Sistersville, Point
Pleasant, Weston and number Of
smaller towns. In reaching a deci
sion, Judge POffenbarger reserved the
right to prepare and Ale the opinion
Of the court In the case. Judge Miller
and McWhorter, who dissentel from
the decision maie by Judges Sanders,
Brannon and Poffenbarger, also re.
served the right TO file opinions.
Harden was Indicted In Mason coun.
ty in March, 1906, charged with IN.
lawfully selling spirItuous liquors with.
oat having first obtained State t.
cense for the sale therefor according
10 law. At the trial the defendant was
found guilty and Judgment OF fine and
Imprisonment was pronounced against
him. The defendant did not under.
take 10 deny that there had been a
sale by him, but attempted TO justify
the sales by him under n license Ger.
tificate Issued by the county clerk OF
Mason county, not by the authority of
the county court Of that county bat by
authority Of the license court Of com.
mon council OF the town Of Point
Pleasant. II was not pretended that
the county court ever granted such IT,
censes, but Harden offered as evidence
two orders entered in proceedings OF
the circuit court OF Mason county, the
first on the 23rd OF February, 1883,
showing the filing Of the petition Of
five freeholders; the second order en-.
tered May ., 1883, after reciting the
proceedings on the petition, It Is nd.
judged, ordered and decreel that the
charter OF the town OF Point Pleasant
be amended as follows: The council
Of said town shall have the sole pow.
err TO grant all licenses within the
corporate limits Of said town.
The circuit court Of Mason county
excluded, the evidence Of the defend.
ant and Instructed the Jury that the
license was not State license as re.
CURED by law and told the jury that
II they believed the defendant had
sold spurious liquors within one year
next prior TO the finding Of the indlct.
ment, they should find him guilty. A
verdict OF guilty was returned as the
defendant did not deny the sales.
J;idge Miller handed down the opin.
ion when the case was appealed to the
Supreme Court Of Appeals for the first
time and In that opinion he states
that IT Is apparent that the real ques.
ton involved is, whether or not the
license under which the sales we're
made, was valid one. He cited that
the Legislature Of 1877 conferred upon
the circuit courts Of the State certain