The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-03-25
County Auditors Can Refuse to
Accept Breweries as Surety
On Bonds for Retail Liquor
Dealers.
INTERPRETATION OF LAW
HAS LITTLE EFFECT HERE
County Commissioners Would
Have the Right to Refuse to
Approve Bond, only in One
Instance.

The name of but one brewing com.
liquor dealer in this county. as sure
ty. For this reason any decision up
refuse to accept brewing companies
as sureties would not have very broad
effect in this county. Although only
the one brewing concern appears on
the lists of sureties. the names OF
part-ownerS and officers i'll such COM
panies appear with frequent regular
ity. so often in fact that It may be
construed il is the company the sign
ers of the bond represent. that as
the individual. At one time ihs
Minck Brewing company of this city
was credited with owning and operat-
ing thirteen saloons in Richmond The
company does not appear in name ON
the bonds of the men. who secured the
licenses.
The auditor of Marion county, acting
upon instructions of the county attor-
ney, has announced hereafter he will
refuse to accept brewing companies as
securities for bonds. The opinion of
John Ruckelshaus, attorney of Marion
county. is based upon the same stat
utes as govern the issue OF liquor Ii.
censes in Wayne and all other ooun-
ties of the state and therefore has To-
cal application. Referring to a ques-
tion propounded by the auditor of Ma
rion county, Mr.. Ruckelshaus says:
So much of Section 1919. r. s. 1901.
as applies to your question. reads az
follows: The board of county commis-
Sioners at such term shall grant Ii
cense to such applicant upon his Civ
ing bond to the state of Indiana with
at least two freehold sureties resident
within said county, to be approved by
the county auditor, in.the sum of 81
600
1T is my opinion that bonding COM
panies whose articles of Incorporation
state that the purpose for which they
are organized is to do a general bond
ing business. can become surety on n
bond of this kind. and il such bonding
companies duly authqxized to do bus
mess in the county OF Marion. State of
Indiana, become surety on the bond ot
any applicant for license as aforesaid,
the auditor would have the right and
power to approve such a bond
Lack the Necessary Authority.
1T is further my opinion that cor
porations organized for the sole purs
pose of carrying on the brewing bust.
ness have no right under the section
of the statutes above quoted to be.
come surety on the bond of any retail
liquor dealer applying for license un-
less the articles OF incorporation set
out and give said corporation the pow
er 10 go on said bond land this the
articles OF a brewery corporation do
not do), or unless it is in the line and
re gular course of the business Of a
corporation doing brewery business.
to become surety on rhe bond of a re.
tail liquor dealer applying for license
Il am of the opinion that hereafter
no bond should be approved by the
auditor where the surety on the bond
is a corporation doing a brewery bust.
ness"
Company Referred to.
The Jung Brewing company by J. r.
ROwlett, its local agent is the one re-
ferred TO. This company appears on
the bond of Henry Rhoe. who operates
a saloon at - South Fifth street. I'm
der the construction of the law as set
forth by Mr.. Ruckelshaus. the county,
commissioners would have the right
to refuse to approve the bond On ths
bonds of ten other saloon men Of this
city appear the names of stockhoId.
ers, officers or agents Of brewing CONF
panies. The opinion quoted does not
set forth whether an agent for a brew
cry, who is known 70 be acting for
the brewery would be barred as sur.
ETY. by the Interpretation of the law.
Several out of town breweries claim
to operate saloons in this city. The
beer sold at thes places is made by
the brewery. whose name appears
above the door. The name of the local
agent Of an Indianapolis brewery an.
pears on the bonds Of three retail deal
ers in liquor and that Of a local man
on the bonds of even greater num-
Der.