The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-06-05


flied in this court petitions or pro-
tests IN writing against the renewal
of the licenses Of tntrty~twe persons
or firms 10 whom licenses were for
merry granted. The effect of these
petitions or protests vas only 10 stay
the granting of licenses ia these cases
until a contest coaid be made in the
manner provided by law.
The Commonwealth ard the city
Of Richmond both require the pay
i3ent. ~ license tax for the priVi-
iege of selling Intoxicating liquors
The time at which these licenses ex-
psse II. for State licenses. the 3oth
jay Of April and FOR CITY LICENSES
the 3lst Of January In each year. Fhe
fact that the dates M the expiration
Of the state and city licenses are not
sotempufaueous results in some con-
fusion and Inconvenience In the grant
ing If licenses IN any case ef the
Il
licenses the applicant viii have PAD
Ger ms PRIV teEe esther 10 thc state
or city beyond the date df such re-
fusai or revocation In all These
cases ~ which a renewal Of the state
licenses Cor the wear beginning May
4 ia contested .he parties have paid
the city license tax and have received
a city license for the year beginning
February /. 1914
aIiuae tn these facts In this con
raetion With the hope that tho city
Wun.f N4li 50 amend the ordinances
La 10 make all city licenses, aud espe-
nay licenses To sel} Intoxicating IT,
,eors. expire on the 50th day Of Anrt3
s each year.
Protests Filed.
Before tho first day of February o
This year several protests We're hled
IN this caurt agains; the renewal -
the city licenses OF some of Tho pa
ties SOW before the court, bat as the
city ordinances do rot provide any
mode of contest and the statute DOES.
the CITY licenses We're granted and
the contests were deferred until
shortly before the tiEe for the re-
newal Of i>e State licenses
The hearing Of these cases was be-
gun on the aSth day Of April, and CON-
tinued day after day until the @ssn
day Of May. 1914 Judgment has
aeen deferred until all the c-scs
,eonla he heard. This course has hs~-
}55itat3gd IN order 10 have general
view of the situation, and to derive
all possible benefit from "a consider2-
ton OF the various ph@ses of the -
froyersv Very repiops notes Of the
testimony have been taken. ana THESE
have beer read and rereaa and per-
sonal visits have been made TO the
location of all these places Of bust
ness.
In view of the responsibility rest
ing upon the judge OF this court IN
granting or refusing the licenses ap-
piled for, personal knowledge Of ply
steal conditions, rs we'll as tho evil
n, "A 41
be considered in reaching a conelu-
sion.
Section Of the act OF the general
assembly. approved March L. 1905.
provides that any person desiring a
license to sell Intoxicating liquors
may make application in writing upon
the prescribed form to the commits
s.oner of the revenue, and pay 10
the treasurer the amount or money
required for such license. The COM
missioner of the revenue snail reier
such application to the proper court.
which In Richmond is this court, and
said court shall hear such evidence
az nay be introduced for or against
the applicatlon. and hear and deter
mine the question of granting the
same.
Section 10 Of the same act pro-
vides that.
"yt shall be lawful for any person
who may consider that he would be
aggrieved by granting any Incense un-
der this act to have himself entered
and made party defendant to said
application and to defend and con-
test the same"
Duty of Judge.
In each of these contests this re-
nnsrament of the law has been COM
piled with. The same section then
.psescribes the duty Of the judge IN
the following terms:
.If the court be fully satisfied. upon
the hearing of the testimony for and
against the application. that the appli-
~ar, is q fit person to conduct such
business, and that he Will keep an
~ personally superin-
lend the same aaa that the place at
'neted is a shit
vpropriate place
Tor CONDUCTING snaa business. the
Icourt may, upon the execution by the
applicant at bond. etc, grant such
SS ss1 IN 49, shAxs beerl syentsgl