Case Name: Buzz LASSITER, Larry SEABOLT and Jimmy BARRENTINE v. Basil R. KESTERSON and the ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1985-02-04
Citations: 284 Ark. 498
Docket Number: 84-213
Parties: Buzz LASSITER, Larry SEABOLT and Jimmy BARRENTINE v. Basil R. KESTERSON and the ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD
Judges: Purtle, J., dissents.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 284
Pages: 498–501

Head Matter:
Buzz LASSITER, Larry SEABOLT and Jimmy BARRENTINE v. Basil R. KESTERSON and the ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD
84-213
683 S.W.2d 613
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered February 4, 1985
Lance L. Hanshaw, for appellants.
Treeca J. Dyer, for appellees.

Opinion:
Robert H. Dudley, Justice.
Appellee, Basil Kesterson, filed an application with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Administration for an on premises consumption mixed drink permit for a private club to be located in Grannis. Grannis is in Polk County, which is "dry". The Director of the administration denied the application but, on appeal, the Board reversed and granted the permit. The circuit court affirmed. We reverse and remand with directions to deny the permit. Jurisdiction of this appeal is in this Court pursuant to Rule 29(1 )(c) since it involves the interpretation and construction of the Private Club Act.
Appellant's principal argument is that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board erred in its interpretation of the Private Club Act, Ark. Stat. Ann. Title 48, Chapter 14. The argument is meritorious.
A private club which may obtain a permit is defined as a non-profit organization consisting of at least 100 regular dues paying members and being in existence for some common purpose other than the consumption of alcoholic beverages. It must own or lease space in a building, and it must have been in existence for at least one year before applying for the permit. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 48-1402 (j) (Repl. 1977).
In this case the applicant was not an organization with at least 100 dues paying members which had been in existence for at least one year. Instead, appellee Kesterson had obtained a two year old charter from another county, amended it to change the address, and sold prospective memberships with no definite immediate purpose other than the consumption of alcoholic beverages. The applicant did not comply with the mandatory language of the statute, and the Board misconstrued the statute in finding compliance.
Further, the applicant proposed to obtain facilities after the permit was issued. Again, the mandatory language of the statute was not followed. The statute mandates that the applicant own or lease its facilities for at least one year before application.
Reversed and remanded with directions to deny the permit.
Purtle, J., dissents.