The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1909-11-02
Not a New House.

When Judge Berry granted license to
Robert A. Abbott to sell liquor at the
American House, New Egypt, writ of
ings reviewed by the Supreme Court. On
Tuesday, Justice Bergen handed down
the opinion which was to the effect that
the license was properly granted. The
contention against the application was
that a license had been refused the hotel
and that before it was legal to again apply
the house had come within the statute
which provides that a license cannot be
given to place within certain number
of feet of a schoolhouse or church property.
The American House was certainly within
the prescribed limits, bat the main point
was whether 1t was or was not a new
house. The hotel has been licensed for
many years and in 1908 renewal of the
license was refused. There was never any
intention of abandoning the place, al
though new proprietor took hold. When
ever the law allowed him the privilege he
applied for license, SO the contention
was that the house was kept for the pur-
pose of conducting hotel and that no
other idea had ever been entertained.
This point seems to have been the main
one taken into consideration by the court.
The general feeling In New Egypt and
| with those who have had business there is
that the American House is one that
should have all the privileges OF hotel.
1t Is large, commodious house, well fur
nished, clean, with ample stabling, and
during the entire period the liquor license
has been withheld the proprietor has al
ways been ready to accommodate those
who applied for bed and board. 1t is a
hotel In the strict sense of the word and
there is not much fear that the license
granted will cause it to degenerate into a
mere tipping place. In the opinion filed
! by Judge Bergen he said, In part:
"The conclusion which we have reached
| is that 1t was not the legislative intent to
prevent the renewal or continuance of q
| license to sell liquor at place In existence
| at the time the law went into effect, unless
there is a real and substantial abandon
ment of the business and that, therefore,
there must be something more than the
mere refusal Of the Court to continue or
renew a license to bring the place within
the legislative definition Of new place.
If it appeared that, after opportunity to
renew an application which had been de-
MED, the applicant had neglected his
opportunity to obtain a license, or done
ANYTHING to indicate an abandonment of the
business, then we think it may lose its
place in the-class which the law evidently
intended to protect.
"The argument that If one year Is not
sufficient 20 years would not be is not con-
trolling, because the length of time the
place remains unlicensed would be eviden.
ce of an intention to abandon the business,
but under the law in this state. when the
license is refused, no application can be
made until after the expiration Of one
year, and in this case an application was
made as soon as an opportunity was afford
ed. We, therefore, are of the opinion that
this license was not granted to new place
within the meaning of the act, and that
the writ of certiorari should be dismissed
with costs.
Samuel A. Atkinson, of Mount Holly,
and Peter Backes, of Trenton, appeared
for the prosecutors in the matter, while
the defendant was represented by Eckarc
P. Budd, OF Mount Holly, and John t
Vancleef and John 81. Backes, of Trenton