Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-02-04
HOLDPLEASANION
LIQUOR LICENSE
PETITION VOID
Hotel Will Lose Fight, if Com.
mission Acts on Opinion of
Attorney-G
RIGHT TO WITHDRAW
APPLIcATiON DENIED
Failure to Get Enough Names
in First Tender is Final,
Says Stainback

The Pieasanton hotel loses in an
opinion submitted BY Attorney -gener-
al /. M. Stainback @ the liquor license
commission today, and If the board
acts in accord withshis opinion 1t will
proceed to confirms its denial of the
hotels application tor the liquor-sell-
ing privilege. The lengthy discussion
and extensive searching of statutes on
this application probably will come to
an end at the boards next meeting,
which likely win be held next week.
After threshing over vast num-
Der of legal questions, the application
and petition, carrying the names of
property.holders who approved of the
proposed license, we're taken up for
action at the boards last Sc lion,
when the discovery vas made that the
petition did not carry the number OF
signatures required by law. Then the
representatives of the applicant
sought permission to withdraw IT, that
the defect might, il possible, be RENE
died and the petition introduced again
at an early date. Ifathe application is
directly denied the applicant is bar
red from presenting another for pc
riod of two years from the date Of
refusal
The commission was uncertain whe-
ther it was required by law to act,
once the subject was brought directly
before it for consideration, or wheth-
er the applicant might be permitted
withdrawal. The question was put
up to the attorneys general and he, con-
cluding written Sopinion. says:
sOn the whole. Though ! am not
fully satisfied o. q the intent of the
legislature, 4 am of the opinion thar
the petition may not be withdrawn at
this stage OF the proceeding, that is,
after an actual motion to refuse the
application Is before the commission
and the withdrawal is merely for the
purpose of defeating an adverse de-
cision.
In the same opinion the attorney
general comments:
"The provision in section Is (ses-
sion laws Of 1907 to the effect that
an application shall be refused upon
the ground that the necessary consent
of neighbofing property holders has
not been obtained seems to be a use
less provision. and can serve no pur.
pose If we take tho view that an ap-
plicant can render such provision
nugatory by merely withdrawing his
petition after IT appears that the de.
cision will be adverse.
1T can be urged that even though.
the petitioner has no absolute right of
withdrawal, the board can consent to
the withdrawal of the petition where
there is q case presenting equitable
grounds aud that such an interpreJa-
tion would enable the board to protect
itself against the withdrawal of the
petition merely Tor the purpose of
preventing an adverse decision. The
statute contains no such provisions
and 1t is difficult to see how such in
depreciation can be arrived at from
consideration of It's intent and pur.
poses. "
Further, one of the purposes in
section %. may well be to prevent the
continuous agitation of the establish
ment of a saloon In certain premises
even though the board may be will
ing to see the question again go be.
fore the voters of that district"