Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-12-23

The opinion deals directly with the
application for the Pleasanton hotel
license, the board having passed up
to the encouragement several knotty
points for legal ruling.
The leading questions relate u he
Interpretation of what constitutes a
property holder" qualified to sign a
petition for a liquor license; ana TO
what method should be used in de-
termining whether premises on which
liquor is to be sold are the requisite
distance from school buildings. etc.
The attorney general takes a broad
view of the term ''property-holder.
Succinctly he says in the course Of
his opinion, The signature Of les
see Of hundred square feet Of unim'
proved land counts for just as much
as the signature of the owner in fee
simple of a thousand feet of improved
land
EnIiVened by Hunor.
A similarly broad construction is
placed on the physical measurements
to be taken in determining the loca-
ton of saloon premises. And in dis
cussing this point the encouragement
lightens his opinion with a fash OF
humor. He declares that it is easy for
a man with thirst to go over, through
or under any kind Of fence.
The opinion opens with a discussion
of consent" of property holders and
validity of signatures to the Pleasan-
ton application. He says that such
consent must be acted upon within
reasonable time. On this point he
Celebrates as follows:
What constitutes a reasonable time
is ordinarily question of fact de-
pending upon all the facts and cir
in the case. Your letter
states that the signatures were Sc
cured on or about March II, 1914, SO
i presume that all the signatures were
secured about that date; but If the
applicant was engaged in securing
signatures between March and the
date of filing the application, the mum.
Der of holders of real estate, the ease
or difficulty in ascertaining who are
holders, ETC., or any other facts deal
ing with the delay may be considered
as some of the circumstances Of he
case in determining what constitutes
a reasonable time. II the delay in
filing was so great that there could
be no room for "a difference of opinion,
upon the subject among reasonable
men. then 1t could be considered as
matter of law that an unreasonable
time had elapsed, as for example, #
year CT two had elapsed between the
signing of the consent and the filing
of the application On the other hand
IL the application had been presented
so promptly that there could be no
room for difference Of opinion on the
subject it would be considered as a
matter Of law that the consent was
not revoked by mere lapse of time. l.
hesitate TO say that. as matter OF
law, six months is an unreasonable
delay; still less can I say that, as a
matter of law, the petition has been
presented within reasonable time.
Il 10 a question Of fact for you gentle
men, acting in the capacity OF q jury,
to say whether, considering all the
circumstances land you may inquire
fully into all facts relevant to the de-
lay) there has been such an unreason-
able delay as 10 constitute a revoca-
ton Of the consent granted In March.
In the fact that the consents were
secured under different board is i'm
material, The boards existence is
continuous though the membership
may change sc
Date Of Signatures IRmaterial.
He further declares, Clearly, the
date of securing the signatures is i'm
material" Fl
Discussing what is meant by prop
erty-holder" under the law, the attor-
ney-general cites legal authorities
briefly On this ppint he says. in part:
TT has been urged that the word
holders though applying to lessees
applied only to tenants for a term of
years and not to tenants from month
to month, the reason being that re-
Quiring the consent of holders Is only
for the purpose Of protecting them
financially in their holdings and that
q tenancy at will mas no saleably fin
ancial value and is therefore incapable
of depreciation. There can be no
doubt that one of the reasons for re-
quiring the consent of the holders of
real estate in the neighborhood is be-
cause the establishment of a liquor
business often affects the value and
character of the surrounding property
and the uses for which it may be de-
sirable. Not that the establishment of
q grog shop necessarily depreciatesI
the value of the surrounding property
tif saloons were SO unpopular that we
all Stunned them it would be unneces-
sary to pass liquor lawsl; it may in
deed. in some localities and for some
businesses, increase its value See
People VS.. Griesbaeh. I'll. Ill IS. which
points out that one person may con.
slider the establishment of a saloon
beneficial to the surrounding property
while another may consider it detri-
mental.
But l do not think that the ques-
ton of affecting values of real estate
was the only object the legislature in.
tended in requiring the consent of
.