Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1916-03-06
LICENSES ARE LOST
ON EXCISE APPEAL
WardeII and Carr Must Give
Up Saloons, Court
DEGREES.

The saloons of James W. Wardell at
1903 NJ street northwest, and of Patrick
F. Carr, at 1905 NJ street northwest
exist without authority of law, con-
stitute a public nuisance and enta1led
special damage to the Washington and
Old Dominion railway and have been a
special menace to its business. Inc
District Court of Appeals so held today
when it affirmed an injunction granted
by Justice Mccoy of the District SUI
preme Court restraining the DISTRICT
excise board from granting licenses 10
Carr and Wardell.
The opinion was written by Justice
Wendell p. Stafford of the District Su-
preme Court, who substituted on the
appellate bench at the hearing of the
appeal of the saloonkeepers.
-Four legal propositions are passed on
by the court. 1t holds that when Com
gress wrote the word now" in the
Jones Works bill it meant the time OF
passage Of the act and not the date on
which it should become operative.
The act provided that no license
might be issued to a saloon located
west of the western fire limit as now
established" The western limit then
was 35th street. but the Commission
ers, between the passage of the bill
March g. and July 1. when the act
went into effect, extended the fire limit
to a point west of the location of these
saloons. The corporation counsels Of
flee is said to have advised the excise
board that now" meant the time al
which the law was to take effect. and
as the fire limits We're west OF the
saloons the licenses were granted.
The second question was whether the
abroad company had sustained special
and peculiar injury from the location
views the testimony and declares IT
hard to imagine a more typical case of
the doctrine of special injury and holds
that special damage and special
menace TO it's business had been SHOWN
by the company
On Right of Injunction.
On the proposition put forward by
the excise board that the company was
not entitled to injunction because 1t
had a complete remedy at law by
certiorari the appellate court also finds
in favor of the company. The opinion
points out that the company was no
party to the application for the
license. The courts have held, IT is
stated, that the absolute right of re-
view vests only in the parties to the
record and as the company was not
such party certiorari did not lie as a
matter of right.
had by the company in the Police Court
Justice Stafford suggests that such
proceeding would have to be on IN
formation filed by the corporation
counsel, who had advised the excise
board that the licenses could legally
be granted LAS the corporation coun-
sci had advised the granting of the
licenses" says the opinion. and still
maintains that they are legally grant
ed it is hardly to be supposed that he
would consider 1t his duty to prose-
cute the grantees upon the theory that
the licenses were granted contrary to
law.
The court concludes by holding that
one whose property is specially dam
aged and threatened with further spe-
cial damage by an alleged nuisance is
not bound to rely upon prosecution in
a criminal court. That an act is a
crime does not prevent its also being a
tort for which the injured party may
seek redress in the civil courts it is
declared.
Attorneys Wilton J. Lambert, Crandal
Mackey and Rudolph II. Yeatman APP
peared for the company. Assistant
Corporation Counsel Stephens repre-
sented the excise board, and the own
ers of the saloons and the properties
occupied had as counsel Attorneys Leon
Tobriner, A II. Bell. r. F. Downing
and Levi H. Cooke.