The Sentinel=record., 1914-05-14

Circuit Judge Gotham yesterday morning affirmed the decision of the county court presided over by Judge Robert Mooney in the matter of a decision that petitions circulated lu Hot Springs for the granting of liquor license under the Going law. Judge Gotham held that the county court had not abused its discretion' in passing on the petitions, which to his mind seemed to have been sui ficient to the purpose
 further than this, Judge Gotham did not rule ont numbers of petitions which contained one or two irreSu- larities. as shown in the long survey of the petitions in court, but de- clared that tbese were irregularities occasioned in the requirements of new law which was not well known to the petitioners, and which irregu- larities most likely could be properly ascribed to ignorance ot the require ments in strict sense, than to fraud,
 Some of the petitions were thrown out those for instance where the circuators had not signed them, or had not themselves circulated them, and where it was plainly evident that no affidavit form had been gone through, but where affidavits had been administered in the casual way , la. notaries have, Judge Gotham ruled that such affidayits were bind ing and made the petitions legal.
 The decision in full follows:
 "Counsel for remonstrants have elected to stand on the record so far made m this case and the ruling of tbe court on the motion filed by them to suppress certain petitions and to dismiss the petition. They have not seen fit to introduce any e-'idence m support of their position that the pe. dtioners have not filed and published sucb petition as the law requires containing a majority Of the white adult inhabitants of the city or HoI Springs. prayine that liquor licenses he granted in and for said city, but have chosen rather to rely on the as sumed weakness of the ease made out by the petitioners, and insist that fine law has not been compiled "lth and that the petition should pe uIa- missed. The motion which IS no" pressed on the consideration ot the court is. one CD to suppress all ol the petitions filed in this case Tor the following reason'
 "UD The parties who circulated said petitions did not attach his or her affidavit thereto as required by law.
 "c9 The printed affidavit at tached to said petitions was not sworn to by either or any of the per sons who circulated ther'
 "tS) The parties who circulated said petitions were not sworn by the officer whose name is signed thereto as required by law
 "M The parties who circulated said petitions did not make affidavit that the name of each petitioner was signed by him or her in his presence Or by atfiant in the presence ot the netitioner, and at his or her request before said petitions were filed in uhe county court, as required by law.
 "c5l Because said petitions were not published as required by law.
 Most of the grounds set up in thls motion have already been passed upon in a former motion to dismiss the petition for want of jurisdictlon' If would be A waste of time to go over this ground again. The idea or counsel for remonstrants seems to De that because the law has not been strictly complied with by some per eons who circulated petitions, De- cause some irregularities, and pos siblv fraud, has been shown Tn the ease of some petitions, that the whole petition should be dismlsseu' do not so construe the law. It would be unreasonable to expect m a ceee like this. with something Ike BOO persons circulating petitions uh' der law that has pever been con etrned by the courts, that the law would be tracked to the letter and no irreeularities creep in. Again why should the petitions of those who have complied with the law De suppressed, just because certain other individuals have not compiled