The Salt Lake herald-Republican. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1909-1918, 1910-09-18

to be sold and disposed OF on Sunday.
and there upon his premises where such
business was carried on by means of
cards. slot machines and other devices.
in violation OF law. and that n proper
license were issued TO him he would
continue TO carry on the business with
such violations Of the law. The un-
doubted effect OF such averments was
that the plaintiff was not a suita.io
person to be intrusted with the con-
duct OF the business. and unquesrion-
ably was showing OF good cause why
the court should not by mandamuS d.
rect a license to be issued to him. The
plaintiff. by his motion for judgment on
the pleadings. at least for the purposes
OF the motion, admitted the truth or
the facts thus averred by the defend
ants. The only judgment which the
court could have rendered for the
plaintiff, on the motion. was, to direct
the defendants to issue license TO him
I'm accordance with the allegations and
prayer OF the complaint. But con-
fessedly such a Judgment could not
properly have been rendered by the
court in the face or the averments con-
tanned I'm the verified answer. Such
averments did not controvert only
part OF the cause OF action alleged IN
the complaint, but constituted a COM
plete defense.
Inconsistent Orders.
The court in effect made two incon-
sistent orders, or rendered two incon-
after being sufficiently advised" made
an order granting plaintiffs motion for
judgment on the pleadings. which indi-
rectly. and, were IL not for the SUISSE
quent order or judgment Of the court.
directly. required and commanded the
defendants to Issue a license TO the
plaintiff. as prayed for in his COM
plant, and which was ruling that
the cause or causes averred in their an
swer why they had not done so, was
no cause. Then the court. without evil
dence or further proceedings, made
findings OF facts. that the allegations
OF the complaint were true. and upon
such findings made an order. or rem
dered Judgment REMINDING the case
back to the defendants. in effect. TO
proceed and determine whether the YER
flied answer filed by them was true or
not. and whether the plaintiff has
complied with the provisions OF law re-
lating to the granting OF liquor licenses.
whether or not he is n suitable person
TO whom a liquor license for the sale
| Of Intoxicating liquors at retail al the
place petitioned for should be granted,
and whether or not for any other rea-
son applicable TO the granting OF this
/ particular liquor license, the said IL
cense, in the exercise OF their discre-
/ ton, should or should not be granted,
and admonished and directed them that
I they must not refuse TO grant the IL
| cense on the ground that they were op-
| posed to the granting OF licenses 20
| sell intoxicating liquors in the county.
/ Such a judgment was not responsive 20,
| nor in accordance with, the pleadings
/ As before observed. the complaint does
| not proceed upon the theory that the
| defendants had refused to consider, or
| examine the application. or to act, or
| 20 proceed TO a decision or determine
| ton. but upon the theory that the
| plaintiff. upon the filing OF his petit
/ ton with the county clerk for a license
| in conformity with the statutes. and the
| presentation OF a proper bond as re-
/ quircd by the statute. was entitled to a
license. and that a plain legal duty was
/ defendants grant
| st. and that their. refusal TO do so waE
/ based upon insufficient reasons or in
| valid grounds. and hence the action OF
to command and compel the defendants
| not TO hear and determine whether the
plaintiff was entitled TO a license, but
TO issue one 20 him.
we are or the opinion that the judg