The Clayton citizen. [volume] (Clayton, Union County, N.M.) 1906-19??, 1916-03-09

JUDICIAL DlSCrlcC OF Cne SCaCe OF NEW
Mexico, Sitting Within and for the
County Of Union.
e. ]. Walters,
Plaintiff
VS.. No. 1899
T. ]. Crumley, acting sheriff of Union
County, New Mexico,
Defendant.
OPINION
THIS CAUSE is now before the
Court on the motion of the defendant
to dissolve the temporary injunction
issued herein during the absence of
the Judge of this court from the State.
A temporary order was issued re-
straining the defendant from attempt
ing to close a saloon operated by
plaintiff in block 1850. of the town Of
Clayton, New Mexico, which the de-
fendant Sheriff claims was being op-
Grated illegally because within the dis
tance from the church prohibited by
Subsection 18 of Section 1854 of the
Codifcation Of the Laws of New Mex
leo, 1915.
The part of this subsection which
is applicable to this case reads as fol-
lows: "But no license shall be grant
ed for the sale of liquor within one
block or square Of any church"
The saloon operated by the plaintiff
is at the north edge of block 1850.
The church in question is on the north
side Of block 1861, some little distance
from the street. Block 1861 is direct
ly north of 1850. Block 1861 together
with the street between it and block
1850 measures 800 feet. The distance
between the church and the saloon
in question in a direct line is 1895
feet. These various facts are before
the court by stipulation.
It is the contention of the plaintiff
that when the law says that "no
license shall be granted for the sale Of
liquor within one block or square of
any church" it means that license
could not be granted for the sale Of
liquor at any point within the partic-
ular block in which the church in
question may be located. That in the
case before the court, as the churcn
is located in block 1851, no license
could be granted for the sale Of liquor
any where in said block, but that such
license could be granted in any other
block, no matter how close that would
bring saloon to a church. With this
contention the Court cannot agree. If
that be the law, there could be a row
of churches on ore side Of a narrow
street. and a row of saloons on the
other side, but few feet apart We
would have a law so absurd as to
prohibit a saloon on one side of the
church for three hundred feet, with
buildings located between, and on the
other side of the church to permit
them to be within a few feet with
the intervening space an open street.
Such cannot be reasonable interpre-
tation Of the law.
The Court construes the law before
it to mean that each church is a center
of a prohibition district, whose radius
is distance Of one block or square
measured in straight line, and that
in computing the length of such ra-
dius the width of the street should be
taken into consideration. In reaching
this conclusion the Court is following
decisions rendered by the other courts
Of other states where similar questions
have arisen. A like question was be-
fore the Supreme Court of Louisiana
in State VS.. Berard, Southern 463.
When the Court was considering a
statute of that state which prohibited
the keeping of private markets within
a radius of six squares of the public
market in New 0rleanes, the Court
held that when the Legislature used
such language they had in view to
fix an equal and uniform distance in
order to avoid any arbitrary discrim-
nation, and intended that the distance
should embrace both the length of the
squares and the width Of the streets