The Detroit times., 1915-01-21
CITIZENS WIN
in BIG BATTLE
TO BAR SALOON
Council EnjOined From Permit
ting GrOgshop At Sixteenth
and Myrtle-sts.
RESIDENCE DISTRICT,
JUDGE HOSMER RULES
Court Suggest Law Amend
ment to Give Greater Pub
licity to License Grants

c. w. Terry scored victory We'd
nesday morning in his fight against
the establishment OF saloon at Six
teenth and Myrtle-sts. by Fred Dre-
her, Judge Hosmer granting Mr.. Ter
rys petition for an injunction.
The courts action nuilifes the re-
cent action of the-common council in
taking the location out OF the restrict
ed district so as TO permit Mr.. Dreher
10 transfer his saloon from the corner
OF Humboldt-aye. and Magnolia-st,
Dreher undoubtedly will appeal the
case TO the supreme court.
The decision is of vital Importance
as showing the disposition OF the
courts in interpreting the Warner
Cramton law with respect TO the pro-
hibition OF saloons In residence dis
tricts without the consent of every
property holder within 300 feet. Such
permission was not obtained in this
instance In fact the residents OF
the neighborhood knew nothing of the
councils action until Mr. Terry over
heard a conversation in a barber shop
near his home. In which the proposed
saloon was mentioned. He then made
inquiries and learned that building
on the northeast corner of Myrtle and
Magnolia was being fitted up for the
purpose Backed by more than 100 OF
his neighbors he at once applied Tor
an Injunction At the same time pc
tition OF protest was prepared and
submitted TO the common council.
In announcing his decision, Judge
II taH
the Warner -Cramton law be amended
so as to require the common council,
in the case OF all transfers In resi-
dence districts, TO notify the prop
erty owners affected and give them
an opportunity to be heard.
The courts decision rested solely
on the question OF whether Dreher's
proposed location was a residence Z
business district. Judge Hosmer
personally visited the neighborhood,
Tuesday afternoon, and his conclu-
sion was that 1t must be considered
residential district
"Unquestionably comparatively
few years ago." he said, "Myrtle-st.
was a residence street almost exclu-
sively. At this particular point, Six
teenth and Myrtle. possibly there were
no homes fronting on Myrtle-st,, but
evidently IL was the intention Of the
.,ersons who plated the property that
the houses should be built facing the
north and south streets rather than
the east and west streets, at corners,
and that these streets should be used
for residence purposes"
81 dislike, when the common coun-
ell has ruled on "a question OF fact,
to disagree with them, but | cannot
accede to the doctrine that IL is
question OF fact for the common coun-
ell and not for the court to deter.
mine.
Now, as a matter Of law, simply
because three buildings that are to be
devoted to some extent to business
have been erected at the corner of
Sixteenth and Myrtle-sts. IL doesn't
seem 10 me that this locality is eX-
empted from the restriction provided
in Section 81 of the Warner.Cramton
law |. therefore. feel compelled nm.
der the circumstaI ces to issue an in.
Junction. In case like the present,
where the plaintiffs property is bound
to be affected by the character of the
business II is proposed to establish,
think he has right to bring bill.
And, although | dislike to have any
controversy with the common council.
nevertheless feel constrained in this
case to grant the relief asked"