Bumball v. Burnett
| Decision Date | 06 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 247.,247. |
| Parties | BUMBALL v. BURNETT et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Application for certiorari by Paul Bumball to review the action of D. Frederick Burnett, state commissioner of alcoholic beverage control of the state of New Jersey, and the mayor and council of the borough of Bernardsville, a municipal corporation of the state of New Jersey, in refusing to grant prosecutor a liquor license.
Writ denied.
Argued May term, 1935, before PARKER, CASE, and BODINE, JJ.
Arthur A. Palmer, of Bernardsville, for prosecutor.
Nathan L. Jacobs, of Newark, for respondents.
The prosecutor applied to the borough authorities of Bernardsville for a liquor license, and met with a refusal. He appealed to the state commissioner of alcoholic beverage control (see P. L. 1934, c. 85, p. 218 [N. J. St. Annual 1934, § 100— 312 et seq.]) and that official affirmed the borough refusal. Prosecutor then applied to a justice of this court for a writ of certiorari to review those refusals, and allocatur was denied. He renews his application to this court in banc.
We concur in denial of an allocatur. As a matter of practice, the moving affidavit—and we have merely that of the prosecutor himself—mentions an ordinance of the borough bearing on the subject and claims that it is silent on certain allegedly material points, but attaches no copy of it, so that we are in the dark as to its language. A resolution of the council is quoted only in part. The decision of the commissioner on appeal is not laid before us, except to the extent of its denial of a license. The court in deciding whether to award its prerogative writ is entitled to much more than an affidavit of conclusions, and of facts stated on information and belief, as here.
Apart from this, and assuming the facts claimed, to wit, that the ordinance itself placed no limit on the number of licenses to be issued, and the resolution of council to grant no more, was adopted after prosecutor's application and one other were already filed, we see no illegality whatever in the refusal of a particular license, at least so long as the refusal is not shown to be fraudulent, corrupt, or inspired by improper motives. Nothing of the kind appears in this case. Prosecutor argues apparently that a liquor license is to be obtained and is obtainable on the same theory as a license to carry on, say a grocery business, demandable by any respectable citizen on payment of the prescribed fee; but that is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mazza v. Cavicchia
...595, 15 A. 272, 277, 1 L.R.A. 86 (E. & A. 1888). 'The sale of intoxicating liquor is in a class by itself.' Bumball v. Burnett, 115 N.J.L. 254, 255, 179 A. 307 (Sup.Ct.1935). 'As it is a business attended with danger to the community, it may * * * be entirely prohibited, or be permitted und......
-
Grand Union Co. v. Sills
...or permitted under severe restrictions. Borough of Fanwood v. Rocco, supra, 33 N.J., at p. 411, 165 A.2d 183; Bumball v. Burnett, 115 N.J.L. 254, 255, 179 A. 307 (Sup.Ct.1935); Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves, 308 U.S. 132, 138, 60 S.Ct. 163, 84 L.Ed. 128, 135 (1939). In colonial days there were la......
-
Borough of Fanwood v. Rocco
...bodies were vested with very broad measures of discretion in passing upon applications for licenses. See Bumball v. Burnett, 115 N.J.L. 254, 255, 179 A. 307 (Sup.Ct.1935); Zicherman v. Driscoll, 133 N.J.L. 586, 588, 45 A.2d 620 (Sup.Ct.1946); Biscamp v. Township Council of Teaneck Tp., 5 N.......
-
Silco Automatic Vending Co. v. Puma
...beyond a number less than the maximum prescribed in the ordinance.' (at p. 412, 165 A.2d 183 at p. 187) And in Bumball v. Burnett, 115 N.J.L. 254, 179 A. 307 (Sup.Ct. 1935), the court 'Apart from this, and assuming the facts claimed, to wit, that the ordinance itself placed no limit on the ......