Parnes v. Bd. of Excise Com'rs of City of Elizabeth

• Decision Date: 23 February 1912
• Citation: 82 N.J.L. 285,82 A. 313
• Parties: PARNES v. BOARD OF EXCISE COM'RS OF CITY OF ELIZABETH et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

82 A. 313

82 N.J.L. 285

PARNES

v. BOARD OF EXCISE COM'RS OF CITY OF ELIZABETH et al.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 23, 1912.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari by Samuel Parnes against the Board of Excise Commissioners of Elizabeth and others to review the grant of a saloon license. Writ dismissed.

Argued November term, 1911, before GARRISON, PARKER, and BERGEN, JJ.

James P. Kelly, for prosecutor.

John J. Stamler and James C. Connolly, for defendants.

PARKER, J. This writ brings up for review the action of the board of excise commissioners of Elizabeth in granting a saloon license to William Roth and Joseph Deutsch. The grounds on which the license is challenged are two: That the premises are a new place, and within 200 feet of the curtilage of a church edifice, contrary to the provisions of section 11 of the act of 1889, as amended in P. L. 1906, p. 199 (C. S. 2908, pi. 84); and that the application was not signed by 10 freeholders who had not signed another application. C. S. 1910, p. 2900, pi. 55.

There is no question but that the premises are within the prohibited distance from an edifice called, in the testimony, the "Synagogue Building," and occupied and used by a body known as the "Congregation Holcha Golcher." Without reviewing the testimony, we may say that it satisfactorily appears that such religious services are regularly held in this building as to constitute it a "church edifice," within the meaning of the statute. The question then is whether the premises licensed are a "new place," within the meaning of that statute.

It appears that the synagogue was first built about 1905, and was subsequently burned and rebuilt; that the saloon premises were first licensed and used as such about 1903, and therefore antedated the synagogue. The claim that it was a new place at the time the present license was granted must therefore rest on some abandonment or discontinuance of the former use, so that the premises lost their status as what is commonly called an "old stand."

The evidence shows that in June, 1908, one Friederich transferred to the above-named Deutsch a license for this place that had been issued in April; that in 1909 Deutsch received an inn and tavern license for the property. In 1910 a renewal was asked by Deutsch's son-in-law, William Roth, and refused. The matter lay over for a year, as required by law, and in 1911 Roth and Deutsch applied together for a saloon license, which was granted, and is now in question. Some question was raised as to who was...