Court Opinion

ID: 9568655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:06:15.259631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:54:00.432856
License: Public Domain

Littlejohn, Justice
(dissenting) :
I respectfully dissent and would reverse the order of the lower court, thereby reinstating the ruling of the South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission which refused to issue the renewal license for sale of beer and wine.
The rule is well established in this state that courts will not disturb the ruling of an administrative board on a certiorari hearing unless such findings are entirely without support in the evidence. McKnight v. Smith, 182 S. C. 378, 189 S. E. 361 (1937). The disagreement in this case arises, not as to the rule, but in its application to the facts. It is well established that in hearings before administrative boards, hearsay evidence, especially if not objected to, may be considered and given such probative value as the board thinks appropriate.
“Nevertheless, hearsay evidence is generally held admissible in proceedings before administrative agencies, at last for limited purposes, especially when not objected to.” 2 Am. Jur. (2d) Administrative Law § 382 (1962).
It is inescapable that the lower court and Mr. Justice Bussey elected to totally ignore evidence which the Commission was entitled to, and did consider. In effect, both the lower court and Mr. Justice Bussey tried the case all over again. The testimony of the director, the business manager and the housemother should not be ignored. Certainly it should not be discredited by denominating it incompetent. It is not the province of the court to try the issues. It cannot be said that the findings and conclusions of the Commission were wholly without evidentiary support.
Chairman Pratt of the Commission stated at the commencement of the hearing, “This is an administrative hearing, not a court of law . . . therefore, the strict rule of evidence does not apply ... if, however, you decide you wish *512to object to any evidence, please state your objection and the Commission will rule whether or not to reject or accept the evidence or information.” Considerable testimony based on investigations made by officials of the Epworth Children’s Home was presented to the Commission without objection.
Protest before the Commission was made by the Children’s Home, which presented four witnesses. Mrs. Ruby Weeks Browning testified that she was a housemother in charge of thirteen boys. She testified that there had been a history of boys under her charge buying beer at this location and creating disturbances at the orphanage. She said that the close proximity of the store contributed to their problem because it was the only place they could go to buy beer and get back without being caught.
Mr. James William Patrick, business manager, testified that boys had told him that they had purchased beer at the Minit Saver. He said that there were 150 students on the campus, and that there was not an establishment that sold beer within the area closer than three or four blocks. He said he had made an investigation of the problem and his investigation revealed that the Minit Saver sold beer to male students under 18 years of age. His investigation involved talking with fifteen students.
Dr. Allan Broome testified that the school had repeated trouble and difficulties with the Minit Saver, and that he had talked with children who had purchased beer at the store. He testified:
“Q. And Dr. Broome . . . why have you opposed on behalf of your organization, renewal of the Minit Store Application ?
“A. Because this is the location . . . where we have had repeated difficulties and trouble . . . and therefore ... we feel that the location is not proper for this reason.
“Q. To what extent has the Minit Store ... in question . . . been involved in the alleged disruption of the programs as compared to other stores in the area?
*513“A. The difficulty here has been that . . . from the reports which I have coming to me, are that . . . this is the location and I have not had reports from other locations . . . wherever they be located.
* * *
“Q. Dr. Broome . . . how long have you been aware of the problem existing with reference to this store ?
“A. With this store ? . . . I cannot give you an exact answer, because its been going for several years . . . two or three years . . . and it has been constantly coming up . . . in the process of the operation of the Home, because I don’t date it back to a particular point, but it has been going for a considerable length of time.”
David Rose, a 14-year-old boy from the orphanage, testified that he had purchased beer at the Minit Saver and that other boys and girls under the age of 18 also bought beer there, and that he picked this store because it was the closest.
No one employed at the store testified for the applicant. Howard A. Smith, district manager, testified to the effect that it was against the policy of the store to violate the law and to sell beer to minors. He was not aware of any such sale taking place.
There can be no doubt but that the evidence which the Commission was entitled to consider warranted the conclusion that the close proximity of beer sales at this store creates difficult disciplinary problems for the Epworth Children’s Home. Under Code Section 4-212 the Commission is given a broad discretion in the granting or refusing of applications and renewals. The difficulties had heretofore been reported to the law enforcement agencies by the Epworth authorities. They declined to do anything in the absence of direct proof of a violation of the law.
I do not think it can be said that the ruling of the Commission was wholly without evidentiary support. The problem is one which should be determined by the Commission *514under the evidence and I cannot say that the Commission erred as a matter of law.
The Commission obviously concluded that the Children’s Home has disciplinary problems growing out of the close proximity of the licensee’s beer sales. Its action in refusing to renew the license need not rest on strict proof that sales were made unlawfully to the children. A beer license is not a matter of right; it is not a property right; it is a privilege which the State grants or refuses to grant under the police power. The renewal of the license solves Smith’s problem; it perpetuates the problem of the Home.
I would reverse the order of the Richland County Court.
Moss, C. J., concurs.