Lonsdale Co. v. Bd. of License Com'rs of Town of Cumberland

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: TILLINGHAST, J.
• Citation: Lonsdale Co. v. Bd. of License Com'rs of Town of Cumberland, 25 A. 655, 18 R.I. 6 (R.I. 1892)
• Decision Date: 10 September 1892
• Parties: LONSDALE CO. v. BOARD OF LICENSE COM'RS OF TOWN OF CUMBERLAND.

25 A. 655

18 R.I. 6

LONSDALE CO.

v. BOARD OF LICENSE COM'RS OF TOWN OF CUMBERLAND.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Sept. 10, 1892.

A license to sell liquor was granted by the board of commissioners. A writ of certiorari was obtained to review their action. Proceedings quashed.

Albert A. Baker, for Lonsdale Co. Thomas J. McParlin, for McGinn. Edwin Aldrich, for license commissioners.

TILLINGHAST, J. The record brought up by the respondents, by way of a return to the writ issued in this case, shows, among other things, that after the tiling with the license commissioners of the application of James L. McGinn for a license to sell intoxicating and malt liquors in the village of Lonsdale, in the town of Cumberland, the complainants filed their objections to the granting thereof in manner following, vii.: "To the license commissioners of the town of Cumberland: We, the undersigned, owners of the greater part of the property situated within two hundred feet of the house owned by Albert M. Whipple, on northerly side of Mendon road, Lonsdale, New Village, being the second building east of the railroad, respectfully object to the granting of a license to James L. McGinn, John F. Aldrich, or any other person, for the sale of liquors upon said premises. [Signed] Lonsdale Company. Goddard Brothers, Agts. [Signed] New York, Prov. & Boston R. R.; N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., Lessee and Agent of. By J. B. Gardiner, Supt. Providence, May 6, 1892." That a time was duly fixed by said license commissioners for the purpose of hearing all persons interested in the granting of the said application, and public notice thereof properly given, and that, after several continuances of said application by the said commissioners, the same was, on the 8th day of June, 1892, by them, granted. The record makes no mention of any hearing that was given to the objectors, or of any action which was taken by the commissioners in connection there with. The proof submitted before us shows that the remonstrants were the occupants of the greater part of the land within 200 feet of the building and place for which the license was requested, and that they duly filed their objections, in writing, with said license commissioners, to the granting of a license to the applicant, or to any other person, for the sale of in toxica ting liquors at said place. That one of the remonstrants, viz. the Lonsdale Company, was both the owner and occupant of a part of said land, while the other was the occupant, as lessee, of that part represented by it. The proof also shows that the said remonstrants duly appeared before said commissioners, and were heard in support of their said objections.

The respondents contend, among other things, that the objections filed by the complainants contain no allegations which bring them within the statute, and that, therefore, the license commissioners were not bound to consider them. In other words, their contention is that it is necessary for the objectors to formally allege that they are the owners or occupants, or the owners and occupants, as the case may be, of the greater part of the land within 200 feet of the place to be licensed, in order to entitle them to any rights as objectors, under the statute, and that as the objectors in this case simply alleged that they were the owners of the greater part of the "property"' within 200 feet, etc., they are not entitled to any standing as objectors, under said statute. We do not think that such a position can be maintained. The statute (Pub. Laws R. I. c. 816, § 2)¹ of August 1, 1889, prohibiting the granting of a license where the owners or occupants of the greater part of the land within 200 feet of such building or place object thereto, does not contemplate that the owners or occupants of the land within the prescribed limit, in order to assert their rights thereunder, should be compelled to employ counsel to prepare a formal and technical objection, which shall be in accordance with the strict rules of criminal pleading, but simply that upon filing with the commissioners their objections, in writing, to the granting of the proposed license, they shall have the right to show that they are the owners or occupants, or both, of the greater part of the land within the prescribed limit. In short, the question for the commissioners to determine, upon objections being duly filed with them to the granting of a license, is simply whether the objectors own or occupy the greater part of the land within 200 feet of the place for which the license is sought. If it is shown that they do, the commissioners are without jurisdiction to grant the license requested, and must dismiss the application.

The respondents also contend that the paper containing the objections to the granting of the license in question was not properly executed on the part of the railroad companies represented, in that it was not signed by said companies, or by their corporate authority. The reccord shows that the corporate names of said railroad companies was affixed by "J. B. Gardiner, Supt.," and the proof shows that said Gardiner was superintendent and agent of said railroads in this state at that time. It further shows that said Gardiner was requested by Gen. Jacob W. Miller, of the city of New York, the general manager of said railroads, to sign said objections, and that in pursuance of said request, and of his (said Gardiner's) authority in the management and operation of said railroads, he signed the same. Said Miller testified that he had the right to instruct the superintendent to take all proper measures looking towards the safe operation of his division of said railroads, and that it was entirely within his province, as general manager thereof, to ask Mr. Gardiner to sign the remonstrance. We think that this proof sufficiently establishes the authority of Mr. Gardiner to sign the names of the...