Evening star., 1916-01-03
Metropolitan Club May Still
Sell Liquor, Justice Van
0rSdeI Holds. J
DISCRETION EXERCISED
BY THE EXCISE BOARD
Action Of Body Cannot Be I'm
peached Collaterally, Court
Says, in Opinion.

The District Of Columbia cannot i'm
peach collaterally a license issued by
the excise board after ii has received
the license fee. The District Court of
Appeals so decided today in an opinion
by Justice Van OrsdeI sustaining the
judgment of the Police Court in favor
of Nathaniel Wilson. president of the
Metropolitan Club.
The license furnishes q complete de-
fense to the prosecution, the court de-
clares.
After the excise board had received
the fee for a license and had granted
the privilege to the president OF the
club to sell liquor at premises 1900 I'll
street northwest. the District Of Column
bia filed an information in the Police
Court against the club. charging the un-
lawful sale of liquor
The District claimed that the license
was void because II allowed the sale
OF intoxtcants in residence section
against the provision of the Jones'
Works act, and also on the side of a
square where less than so per cent of
the frontage was used for business.
The club. through Attorney Clarence
R. Wilson. filed a demurrer in the Po-
lice Court. which was sustained. The
District of Columbia then prosecuted
an appeal. declaring that 1t was not
bound by the action of the excise board.
Opinion of the Court.
In sustaining the Police Court Justice
Van Orsdel says: 'It appears from a
review of the act that the excise board
Is vested with wide administrative and
judicial discretion in the matter Of
granting or refusing liquor lincenses.
The board Is created a quasi judicial
tribunal. with sufficient express pow
ers. either by Interpretation of the
provisions of the act itself or by rules
not Inconsistent Herewith. to give
force and effect to the broad purposes
of the act There are limitations in
this act, and in other statutes in force
in this District defining territorial
limits within which it is made unlaw-
full under any circumstances to grant
liquor license.
The Metropolitan Club, however, is
not located within any Of these descrio-
ed limits. But, it Is contended. and so
alleged in the information, that the
license is null and void for the reason
that the club is located within a resi-
dence section and not on the side OF q
block where more than SO per cent OF
the frontage is devoted to business pur-
poses.
of the powers and jurisdiction of tho
board Manifestly, the board would ex-
ceed its Jurisdiction IL 1t granted 9
license to sell liquor within prohibited
territory expressly described. Such q
license would be totally void. But that
is not this case. Concededly the Met
ropolitan Club is not located within
territory expressly prohibited ana IN
which the board has no jurisdiction to
entertain applications for licenses.
Left to Discretion Of Board.
"On the contrary. the act expressly
confers upon the board power and dis
cretion to determine in this instance
whether or not the club is in resi-
dence or business section of the city or
on a square where more than half Of
the frontage is devoted to business.
These matters being left to the ascer-
tainment and determination OF the
board, a license enormously granted
after full consideration OF the ques-
tions of fact and of mixed law and
fact Is not void. but voidable- 1t Is
unnecessary to consider whether. un-
der the language Of the act making the
actions of the board inal and con-
elusive, jurisdiction rests anywhere 10
review the Judgment of the board on
the questions of law and fact thus con-
fided to it's discretion.
The court points out that challenge
of the license in the present proceeding
would involve an inquiry into the ques-
tions OF fact upon which investigation
was required of the board before grant
ing the license. Such review on
license merely voidable would constitute
a review of the action of the board in
collateral proceeding, the court finds.
Immune From Attack.
The court holds that the excise boards
findings, resulting in an issuance Of
license valid on its face, are as immune
from collateral attack would be
license granted by municipality or by
a court.
The board had jurisdiction. Justice
Van Orsdel points out, of the subject
matter and of the parties to determine
the fact whether on not the Metropoli-
tan Club is located within residence
section or on square 80 per cent
given over to business. and. having ad-
Indicated the matter and issued Ii
cense in proper form, it's action can
not be reviewed collaterally.