Arizona republican., 1910-03-31
.|S LOWELL A WAYS|DE? Question Before Supreme Court To Decide RAISED BY SALOONKEEPER He is Trying to Wiring a
 License From the Cochise County Board of Super visors Who Think He is
 Too Close to Bisbee
RAISED BY SALOONKtEPtR

The supreme court yesterday heard arguments on demurrer to the pvti- l ton of J. T. Poland. d salOonkeeper or ! Lowell. for a writ of manjamus. di- rected to the board of supervisors of COchise county. to compel the board to grant him a license. which had been denied because he had not compiled with paragraph 2S75 of the revised statutes in securing the written con sent of the owners ol a majority of the
 real estate within radius of thre- miles of the site of his saloon. one ut
 the conditions imposed when one wants to run saloon within dis | tance Of one mile of city. town or village.
 | The case Was argued for the p-ti- [ tioner by George II NeaIe of RiSb-- ! Attorney O. Gibson of Tombstone ap- 1 peared for the board The matter Was | taken under advisemeUt and VIII h- ! passed upon on Saturday
 Mir. Neale admitted the right oI tre board to refuse a license on ouy .t many grounds. but not on the ground chosen. Under an act of the legiSla- ! ture of l901. the board might refuSe on the ground that the petitioner had conducted a dis0rderly house. becaus-- i he had sold liquor to a minor or to a { habitual drunkard. or because he had violated regulations established Tor the control of saloons. or on any just and ! reasonable ground
 But the supervisors. said MT Neaie 1 had not availed themselves uf th,. l power conferred upon them by this statute. but had fallen back upon the act. Saloons within one mile of In corp0rated cities which he coutend.,I , was not applicable
 ! The opening paragraph of that act ] is: That no license shall be issued by | the sheriff of any county in the terri 1 tory of Arizona. tn any person or per sons to conduct a saloon. waySide inn
 nr other house of public resort where talchhOllc. SpirituOuS or VinouS liQuorS may be sold. outside of. and within. | the distance of one mile from any city or town or village of five hundred in- l habitants in the territory Of Arizona. until the provisions of sections 9. S and of this act have been complied | with The only provision affectiue ! this case is that requiring the securing ! the written consent of the owners or a majority Of the real estate within 30 radius of three miles.
 1 IL was pointed out by NIT Neale that ! his client was not proposing tO start ! a waySide inn or reScrt outside of
 any city. town or village, that though ' Lowell was not an incorporated town i it was a settlement containing p..H | inhabitants
 1 The fact that it was not an incorpo- rated town. the supervisors believed.
 had warranted them in withholdius ] the license. since the saloon was with ! in less than one mile oC the incorpn- rated town of Bisbee
 ! But it was claimed for the petition
 CT that the fact that Lowell is not in l corporated has nothing to d. with ths case. The word Incorporated it waS | pointed out. appears nowhere else
 than in the title of the act Beside. iu ] the law itself. villages" of- more than | five hundred inhabitants are ciaSS-u not as. but with cities and towns. for { the purposes of restricting waysijr
 inns. It was further C0ntended that villages are necessarily unincOrTt,- rated. Therefore. since the Poland sst- l loon k not outside of but within.
 a village of more than five hundred in 1 habitantS. the petitioner is not re- quired to comply with the provision of ! section pr paragraph sS75 of the r,- viSed statutes