Evening star., 1912-11-12
IS UPHELD BY COURT
Claim of the Excise Board as
to Jurisdiction Sustained.
DECISION IN GEIGER CASE
Justice Robb Interprets Powers Over
Control Of Liquor Traffic.
RIGHTS UNDER A LICENSE
Probate Court Could Not Authorize
Executors to Continue Barroom
Under the Circumstances.

The claim of the excise board that it's
jurisdiction over the liquor traffic in
the District is exclusive has been up
held by the Court of Appeals Of the
District of Columbia in an opinion by
Mr.. Justice Robb handed down yester-
day. The court holds that the Probate
Court has no power to authorize execu-
tors to continue a barroom when the
license under which the business had
been operated had expired. The court
also sustained the right Of the excise
board to intervene when such an order
had been passed by the court
The Geiger Case.
Mrs. Anna B. Geiger conducted a bar
room at 1O2 Indiana avenue, at the time
of her death last February. Her execu-
tor William F. Geiger and Eugene Bois-
seau. secured an order of the probate
court to continue the business, pending a
sale. The executors sought a transfer
of the license. but, falling to secure the
consent of a majority of property owners,
the application was rejected. The execu-
tors continued the business, relying on
the courts order.
Corr oration Counsel Thomas on behalf
of the excise board filed an intervening
petition in the probate court, cla ming
that under color of authority of court an
unlicensed barroom was being conducted.
The board set out its claim that its juris-
diction in excise matters is exclusive and
urged that the order had been IMPROVE
IDENTIFY passed. After a hearing Justice
Wright declined to vacate the order and
the excise board appealed.
Appeal Sustained.
The executors sought to have the ap-
peal dismissed on the ground that the
excise board is not the proper party to
intervene In denying this request, JUS
tice Robb expresses the view that the
excise board is charged with general
supervision and control of the sale of
intoxicating liquors in this District,
and that the proviS- -onS of the law re-
garding prosecutions for violations Of
the act merely provide the legal ma
chinerv through which the provisions
of the act are to be enforced.
The Statute Interpreted.
The statute imposes no duty upon
the Commissioners of the District
says Justice Robb with reference to
the sale of intoxicating liquors. They
are given no control over the excise
board. Its duties are exclusive. In
view. therefore, of the broad scope Of
the apparent intent Of Congress,
cleaned from all its legislation upon
the subject, to clothe the board with
authority to represent the District in
matters pertaining to the liquor traffic
in this Jurisdiction, we rule that it was
properly permitted to intervene"
A License Personal to the Holder.
A license to sell liquor. the court holds.
is personal to the holder. a mere permit.
and as the law prohibits transfer Of
license except upon certain conditions and
with the written consent of the excise
board. the executors could not do more
than the holder of the license could have
done. When the executors had failed to
make a transfer OF the license, the court
states, within the time permitted by the
rules of the excise board, the sale OF
liquor thereafter by them was entirely
without authority of law.