Perth Amboy evening news., 1915-03-22
BID. HAS
HARD QUESTION
TO DECIDE upon
Question Arises Over Applica-
ton Made by Floyd T.
Brown to Have License
for Saloon Transferred.

The Board of Excise Commission
ers viii have a question to decide at
their next meeting which probably
was not presented during the past
ten years, certainly not during the
life of the present board. The ques-
tion is whether license after not
being used for thirty days, and after
the building to which it was granted
has been vacated by the licensee for
thirty days, is still alive. One lawyer
and one saloonkeeper this morning
declared that such license is dead.
Two of the excise commissioners,
however, stated this morning that 1t
is not dead, and remains in force
until the expiration of the year for
which the fee was paid.
Those that claim such license is
dead point to Section Is, of the ex-
else ordinance, which reads in part:
The transfer must In all cases be
granted before removal is made, or a
surrender of the business by the per-
son to whom it was originally grant
ed for failure to comply with any
of the provisions Of this section the
board shall refuse to grant the trans
fer" They also point to Section / 4, /,
which reads: That any place which
shall not have had license for more
than one month shall be considered
as new place, II application for a
license at, or transfer to, such a
place be made" One OF the excise
comm issioners stated that this sec
tion could be construed two ways
First, that after thirty days during
which a license is not used the place
becomes new place, and being a
new place would naturally have no
license to be transferred or renewed.
He, however, stated that the intent
OF the section was only to provide
that when license is transferred
from one locality to another, and the
lteensee desires to transfer it back
to the old location, that after thirty
days the old location would be con-
sidered new place and the property
owners within two hundred feet
could prevent the re-transfer by OBJ
tanning the majority of owners sig
natures on a remonstrance.
The whole question has arisen over
the application made by FLOYD r.
Brown to have license transferred
from 33 Smith street to 379 Market
otiCSLs hl DioWA ItIuOV6U lTOIu IS S
Smith street more than a month ago.
and still no transfer of the license
has been made,
1t is understood that the owner of
the license has been offered $1,000
for the license, but will not sell Ii
for less than $4,000 The license will
expire in July.
No Effect on Withdrawal.
Hans Nielsen. owner of the build
Ing at ITO New Brunswick avenue,
takes issue with a statement appear
ing in the NEWS Friday to the effect
that following a remonstrance petit
tion being circulated, Floyd T. Brown
an application to have a
liquor license transferred from SO
Smith street to ITO New Brunswick
avenue. Mr.. Nielsen says that though
the petition was circulated before the
application was withdrawn it had no
effect in causing the withdrawal. HefI
says that though there was remon-
STRANGE petition circulated against
the granting of the application, the
party circulating same did not get
any signers, and therefore 1t was
really no remonstrance He said that
Mr. Brown had a petition for the
transfer signed by big majority of
be property owners within two hun
,fed feet OF the proposed location.