Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1909-06-10
BARNSBORO HOTEL REFUSED
Fred. Barnes Fined $3.50; Jury Re
called on the 21st. XlX.

A Df1eT session OF Court WdS HSiu
this morning, in which Fred Barnes
was fined $3.50 and costs and the
Barnsboro license refused. In the
latter case Judge Starr filed this opin-
ion:-
The petition presented in this mat
ter contains the necessary averments,
in order to comply with the statute,
and the application is recommended
by the requisite number of Freehold
ers.
Upon the hearing it was admitted
that on the first day of the present
term, when the petition was filed, the
applicant was not in the actual ply
sical possession of the premises men
toned neither was he a resident of the
Township of Mantua; also the build
ing did not contain the furnishings
necessary to fulfill the requirements
of the statute.
On May 6, 1909, the real estate had
been sold by the sheriff under foreclos
ure proceedings. When the petition
was presented to the Court, the prop
erty was in the actual possession of
one Jessup, who had a license expir-
ing later. The sheriff's deed was de-
livered to the purchaser, Jacob L..
Kuhn, on May 18th the day the petit
tion was fled Jessup remained in
possession of the property until May
25th, when he vacated same and re-
moved all the furniture. No other
furniture had been placed in the hotel
before the day the case was heard,
although the petitioner stated that
he was in a position to equip the prem
ises as soon as the license was grant
ed
From this condition of affairs it is
apparent that the statements contain
ed in the petition, with reference to
the applicant dwelling in the premises
and the existence of the furnishings,
required by the statute, to authorize
the Court to act, we're not true.
While jurisdiction was conferred by
the averments of the petition pre-
sented, yet the Court is not, by any
means, precluded from making an in
vestigation to ascertain the truth or
otherwise of the statements made
therein.
The petition must be assumed to
refer to the situation, when it is pre-
sented, under the rules, or at least to
the period of thirty days prior there
to, within which the freeholders must
sign In order to justify favorable
action, the Court must be satisfied
that the facts. disclosed by the petit
tion, existed when it was filed Sub
sequent compliance will not confer
Jurisdiction.
In support of the application, it was
argued that before the petition was
fled an arrangement had been made
between the petitioner and the owner
of the property, by which the former
would be entitled to assume possess
ion of the premises.
When the petition was signed by
the freeholders and filed, no definite
arrangement had been made between
Kuhn, the purchaser at the sheriff s
sale, and the petitioner, with reference
to the latter's occupancy of the prem
ises. There had been some negotia-
tions, which resulted in the prepara-
tion of written document. This how
however was not acceptable to Kuhn
and never executed. If the terms un-
der discussion, as shown by this un-
signed contract had become binding,
as an oral agreement, it was arrang-
ed that the hotel business was to be
the joint enterprise of the petitioner
in equal proportions, the moneys ne
cessary for that purpose, and each
month the profits were to be divided
equally between them. While the tes-
timony is not clear and convincing as
to whether or not fultillment of this
tentative arrangement could have
been compelled by the petitioner
against the landlord, in any event, it
lz<, f<r MI f11 IN ho
determination of the questions involv-
ed. If the arrangement legally en-
titled the petitioner to claim the right
to the possession of the hotel there ex-
listed an agreement for joint interest
in the business, while the petition for
the license was in the individual name
of Wilson. If the negotiations had
not reached the stage of creating an
enforceable arrangement between the
parties then the petitioner in addi-
ton to not dwelling in the premises,
had no agreement binding on the
owner, by which he could secure pos
session thereof.
Upon the authority of Barnegat City
VS., Buzby, 10 Vr. 627, it was further
argued On behalf of the petitioner that
the Court could exercise its discretion
to grant the application, notwithstand
ing the situation as disclosed by the
evidence. A careful reading of this
opinion seems to support such con-
tention.
However this may be, think a
grant of this application would be a
violation of the spirit, as we'll as the
language of the statute. If the petit
tion is granted the Court must base
its action upon situation, so far as
actual occupancy or right thereto and
necessary equipment are concerned,
which did not exist at the time the
petition was filed, but is to be sup-
piled later. This, it seems to me, is
a very dangerous precedent to estab-
lish. The Court has a right to as
sumo that in these cases the petitioner
and the recommending freeholders act
in good faith, and with knowledge of
the facts certified by them.
If the Court is to proceed upon the
existence of those qualifications which