The diamond drill. (Crystal Falls, Iron County, Mich.) 1887-1996, 1912-09-14
COUNCIL ORDERED TO
GRANT GRESS LICENSE
JUDGE FLANAGAN HOLDS THAII3
is THE CORRECT NUMBER
THE LICENSE ORDINANCE STANDS
Colrt Couldn't Say That the License Was
Oppressive on Other Business Places
Not Taxed

Joe Gress gets his license. Moriarty
a. Dwyer won ont in their contention
that more saloons could be licensed In
this city under the law and the council
is ordered to grant the license to Mr..
Gress within two weeks.
This decision was handed down by
Judge Flanagan at special term of
the cirouit court held last Monday for
the purpose of handing down this de.
cision and considering the application
Of Mr., Waffen for an Injunction
The case arose from the different i'm
terpretationgs put by attorneys npon
the Warner. Cramton law and the de-
cision Of the supreme court last spring
denfiing voluntary surrender
When the council met last spring to
grant licenses there were some twenty
applications The council was advised
by the city attorney that owing co the
voluntary surrenders. defined by the
supreme court. made after the Warner
Champion law went into effect, but
twelve applications could be acted up
on fayorably. Among the applications
turned down was that Of Joe Gress.
Mr.. Gress was NOT satisfied that the
number was correct and through his
attorney, Clarence Dwyer he filed his
application as provided by law for the
vacancy The council held that there
was no vacancy aud Mr. Dwyer brought
a mandamus action to test ont his con
tention
Judge Flanagan rendered his decis
ION orally but reserved the right 10
make written decision should the
parties to the action desire to 20 fur
ther with the matter.
In his decision the Judge said that it
is conceded 10y both sides that the APP
plication and bond of Mr.. Gress is re-
gular and that The only question is
whether twelve or thirteen saloons
were entitled TO license in this city.
the council not having taken advantage
OF the statutory provision allowing a
reduction 10 one saloon for every 800 OF
population at the time the law went
into effect
On May l. 1909 there were "a saloons
entitled to license and twenty three
were licensed On May 1, 1910 suf
ficient voluntary surrenders had taken
place TO have reduced the number eli
gible TO license TO r. Owing 10 the
inisinterpretatIOn of the law at the
time, the council supposed that II WAS
entitled to license 81 and accordingly
four more licenses we're issued In that
year shan were legal and so tour saloon
keepers aid business that year without
a legal license and against whom any
citizen might have started action. A
voluntary surrender couldn be figured
against these four for the reason that
they had no license To surrender A
mong the saloon keepers who did bust
ness that year was one Runquist who
did not apply for license the next
year The council figured this a vol
untary surrender but as t was unable
10 tell who we're the legal and who
the illegal saloon keepers in 1910 the
failure of Runquist to re-apply could
Mt be figured in as n voluntary snr.
render In making mp the figures IN
May 1912. The council figured IN May
OF this year including the Runquist
license that they were limited 10 IL
licenses but as they bad erred in in
Guiding the Runquist license they we're
entitled 20 allow l3 licenses instead of
~.
The council must establish it's right
to refuse the application for any license
that is applied for under the law and
no reason for the refusal 60 issue
license 10 Gress had been set up other
than that they thought they were
limited to le licenses. That being the
case Gress was entitled 60 his license
and the council was gwen two weeks
10 get together and issue IL 20 him.
In the matter OF the ordinance levy
ing a tax Of $3.50 ON saloons the con
tention of the applicant is that the
amount was unreasonable. Other
places Of business than those In which
intoxicating liquors are sold ARE known
aa saloons, snch as candy stores and
soft drink places and no testimony~had
been pnt In 10 show that the tee was
unreasonable when compared with the
Volume of business transacted by them.
The court admitted that n was prob
ably It's fault that the evidences was