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

license 10 sell intoxicating NAQANIa a.
retail az Devirs slide, IN Morgan coun-
H. Il is alleged In the complaint that
IN, and prior 10. the LIST day OF Marcn.
tSs9. tAe plaintiff was engaged In such
license heretofore issued 20 him py
the defendants. and that on the day last
named he applied 20 them for license
20 there continue the business. but that
they refused 20 grant a. II - turther
alleged that the plaintiu signed ano
flied a petition FOR a license with the
county clerk Of Morgan county as pro-
vided bv law. and that he also pre-
scented bond signed BY himself and oy
two good and sufficient sureties IN the
sum 81 81 900. and conditioned as by the
statute provided, that be would Keep an
orderly and wcii-rcgulated house. and
would not allow gambling with cards,
dice or other device or implements. ana
that he would pay All damages. hnss
and forfciturcs which might be ad-
judged against him under the provi-
riona relating 90 Intoxicating liquors
It is further alleged that the applica-
tion was acted upon by said defend
ants on March l. 1909 In due and reg
ular meeting OF said board Of county
there refused and not granted and
that such refusal was not based upon
any defect In the application nor upon
any other reason. except that said board
was opposed 90 the granting OF any
liquor license I'm said county and refused
said application upon said ground and
writ OF Mandate.
Upon such verified complaint, the
plaintiff PRAYED that the defendants
Be required TO issue him a license 90
Slide. or show cause why they should
not DO 20. and the district court issued
an alternative writ of mandate com
mandiur the defendants. as the county
commissioners ~ Morgan county. 70
grant the license 20 plaintiff as prayed
Tor. or show cause why they ala not
Tho defendants filed MOTION 20 qussh
the writ and demurrer 10 the COM
plant Tor want or facts. The motion
aud tho demurrer were ovCrrulcd. The
defendants then filed an answer I'm
which they avcrrcd that large major
tty Of the residents and taxpayers or
Morgan county was opposed to the
granting or licenses for the sale Of In
toXicatinr liquors az any place within
tho boundaries Of the county. outside
% the limits Of Incorporated cities. and
that large percentage of the residents
and taxpayers OF that county had there
tofore filed with the county commits
Fioncrs written protests against the
granting or any such licenses, that II
was against the Interests OF Morgan
county. and Of the residents and tax
payers thereof. TO permit the sale OF
Intoxicating liquors az any place with
fn the boundaries OF the county. outside
the limits OF Incorporated cities. that
u majority Of the residents and tax
payers Of the precinct In which the
plaintiff desired permission TO sell in
foxrcatiuE liquors were opposed TO the
granting 81 a license 90 sell iutoxrcat-
snu liquors az retail therein; ana tnaf.
in the opinion Of the defendants. tho
permitting 81 such sales iu such pre-
ciuct was against the best interests Of
the precinct. aRd OF the residents ana
.ANpa lers ln'ItnI. ~ l- 49, ~
plaintiff was engaged iu the business ~
selling Intoxicating liquors az Devils
Slide. prior Co the LIST dav or March.
1909. under n license heretofore issued
Co him hv tho board OF county commits
siuucrs. the plaintiff In the conduct
~ such business. knowingly and re-
I'LL. HaaHn Of frn IN q
sand more particularly. that the plain
fife permitted intoxicating liquors Go
- sold and disposed Of on the prem
ftrr on the first day of the week.
commonly called sunday. and that 90
diverse times during said period he
permitted upon such premises, CANT
that the defendants believed n r.
Ccnee were issued 90 sre plaintiff. rs
applied Tor by him. DO would continue
fu the conduct of such business upon
bis premises. Co violate such laws. and
that. Boz the opinion Of The defendants
no license should he ranted him O.
sell Intoxicating liquors NJ sucn place
Ftnsinrs Of Facts
Upon the films Of such answer TIE
plaintiff moved Tor a Judgment upor
thc pleading. After argument and
submission the court took the motor
under adviecmcut and subsequently or
dcrcd ndiudEcd chat said motion be
and the same is hereby granted
NUFHNNINfr |Nf NNNENa ANNINMN w NfNNIN'
or any further proceedings. made find
fuEs of facts. finding an the allegations
81 the complaint 90 be true. ana upof
such findings ordered and adjudEe,
shat a "a pcremptory writ or ma ndamu'
issue 90 the iefcudautg.' comma ndini
them immediately after the receipt ri
This writ to proceed 90 consider wheth
or or not the plaintiff has complie'
with the provisions ~ law relating q
the granting Of liquor licenses. whethe'
or not rc is suitable person 70 WHOM
O. Ia -Hr n OF HHH % ~
frrtiur liquors OF rct1ff ~ the plac'
uctiffoucd Tor should be granted. ant
whether or not for any other reason
applicable Co the granting ~ this par
tfcufar license. the said license. IN th'
exercise Of their discretion. should n
should not be granted. other than ~
general objection 90 granting any n
ccurc az an for the sale OF Intoxicating
liquors Of retail In said county. ant
said defendants are further dlrectc'
not Co refuse 60 issue the said lCcns
o. tire said plaintiff upon the Eroun'
that thcv are opposed 90 the granting
OF any liquor license in said county.
Prosecute Appeal.
Prom such iudgmeuts the defendant
have prosecuted this appeal. The prin
ciuai errors assigned relate Co the rul
furg overriding the demurrer and th
motion 60 quash. and granting 1udg
meuts on the pleadingsfand so-calle'
ffudfuge They involve the question
whether the determination q the com
missioner iu refusing 60 grant IA
pfafntiff n license on his application
ear be- controlled bv mandamus. and
AZ So whether the judgments entcre
~ the lower court on the pleading
and findings were justified
Tho nature and object 81 writ n
.naudamus have often been stated. n
fe a command said the court In IN
case q Iohnsou's License. 1856 Pa. 81
@rs Ito some official or other office
20 proceed TO the discharge Of som
official duty. When that duty is De
Lucrative or depends unon the cNer
else OF an official discretion the pur
nose o. the writ is 90 quicken the &C
ton OF the officer and require him q
proceed 10 hear. 60 deliberate. 90 OK
erctse hts discretion. 10 does not 10
40 revise tho decision ~ any pcrso
clothed with judicial. dcliberative q
discretionary powers. II Judge de
~fines 60 hear. or delays a hearing un
reasonably. n mandamus is the appro
pirate remedy 10 commands him &