Narraganseet Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Kiernan
Decision Date | 15 October 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 680.,680. |
Citation | 194 A. 692 |
Parties | NARRAGANSEET RACING ASS'N, Inc., et al. v. KIERNAN et al. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Proceeding by the Narragansett Racing Association, Inc., and another for a writ of certiorari to review and quash the record of a hearing and decision of Francis J. Kiernan and others, as members of the Division of Horse Racing of the State of Rhode Island.
Petition granted, and record of hearing, findings thereon, and decision quashed.
Hogan & Hogan, of Providence, and Raymond J. McMahon, of Pawtucket, for
Narragansett Racing Ass'n and Walter E. O'Hara.
John P. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., and Hyman Lisker, 4th Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents. Michael De Ciantis, of Providence, for Governor Robert E. Quinn.
This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to have reviewed and quashed, as illegal, the record of the hearing before the Division of Horse Racing of the State of Rhode Island upon certain charges against these petitioners and the record of the decision of that body, dated September 17, 1937, suspending the license of the petitioner Narragansett Racing Association, Inc., and ordering the removal by it of the petitioner, O'Hara, as president and managing director of said Narragansett Racing Association, Inc.
The respondents, Francis J. Kiernan, chief, James H. Hagan, Jr., superintendent of the bureau of licenses, and Thomas F. Kane, superintendent of the bureau of inspection, are the appointed official members of the Division of Horse Racing of the State of Rhode Island, hereinafter called "the division." Upon them certain powers are conferred, by and in accordance with chapter 2086, Public Laws 1934, chapter 2250, Public Laws 1935, to hear and determine charges preferred against a licensee thereunder, to suspend and revoke for cause such licensee's license, and for cause to order the removal by the licensee of officials employed by it. The petitioner Narragansett Racing Association, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Narragansett," is the holder of a class A license issued by said division under the provisions of said chapter 2086 as amended, to conduct horse racing upon specified dates during the year 1937; and petitioner Walter E. O'Hara is the president and managing director of said Narragansett.
Upon the filing of the petition in this court, a citation was issued to the respondents, returnable October 4, to show cause why the writ of certiorari, as prayed for, should not be issued. On October 4th, the return day thereof, the petitioners appeared with their counsel, as did the respondents, the latter being represented under the law by the Attorney General. When the case was called for hearing, Michael De Ciantis, Esq., as personal counsel for His Excellency, Robert E. Quinn, Governor of the State of Rhode Island, represented to the court that the Governor requested leave, as a friend of the court, to file a brief and to argue through his attorney certain questions of law involved. A motion to that effect was made by Mr. De Ciantis and, in the absence of any objection, it was granted, his brief was filed, and argument by him, representing the Governor, was later heard.
Thereupon the respondents produced, through the Attorney General, a record of the hearing before them, which was represented to be the record of the division as prayed for by the petition for the writ, and they requested that it be treated as if it were returned on a writ of certiorari which had been duly issued and served. By agreement of all counsel, including counsel for the Governor, it was then stipulated in open court that the record, so produced, was the one which would have been returned if the writ had been issued and served and that the merits of the case should be heard and determined thereon. Accordingly, the case proceeded to hearing and is before us now upon the merits of the petition and its prayer for relief.
It appears by the petition and record that counsel for Narragansett was served, on September 9, 1937, with a copy of six charges preferred by the division, as grounds upon which they should suspend or revoke the license of Narragansett. This notice was served upon counsel for Narragansett as he was leaving a hearing in this court upon a petition for certiorari in the previous case, Narragansett Racing Association, Inc., and Walter E. O'Hara v. Francis J. Kiernan et al., 194 A. 49, which we have recently decided. It called upon Narragansett to appear before the division at 1 o'clock p. m., on the next day, September 10th, and to show cause why its license to conduct horse racing should not be suspended or revoked. These charges and notice read as follows:
At the appointed time on September 10th, counsel for the respondents (petitioners here) moved for a continuance of the hearing to permit a reasonable time in which to prepare their defense. After counsel notified the division that they were authorized by a justice of the superior court to inform the division that he would entertain a proposed bill in equity to enjoin the hearing, if a reasonable time were not given the respondents to prepare, the motion for a continuance was granted, and the hearing was continued to September 14th.
On the next day, September 11th, the Governor preferred two additional charges against these petitioners who were served with a copy thereof, together with a* notice that these charges would be heard before the division of horse racing on September 14th. These two charges read as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Providence v. Jeremiah
...Court and, underthe practice in this State, is rarely granted where there is another adequate remedy. Narragansett Racing Ass'n v. Kiernan, 59 R.I. 90, 104, 194 A. 692, 700 (1937). In the case of Fox v Personnel appeal Board of the City of Cranston, 98 R.I. 46, 199 A.2d 585 (1964), the Rhod......
-
Thayer Amusement Corp. v. Moulton
...its action and found there was an entire lack of substantial evidence to support its decision. In the second case, Narragansett Racing Ass'n v. Kiernan, 59 R.I. 90, 194 A. 692, the question before us was a pure question of law as to whether the division committed error in refusing to allow ......
-
Brann v. Mahoney
... ... constituting the Maryland Racing Commission, to require the ... defendants to grant ... Inc., v. United ... States, 316 U.S. 407, 62 S.Ct. 1194, 86 ... Kiernan, 59 R.I. 90, 194 A. 692 ... When an ... ...
-
Ricci v. Bove's Estate
...hearing in the matter, to which he was entitled, and all further proceedings taken by the court were erroneous. Narragansett Racing Ass'n v. Kiernan, 51 R.I. 90, 194 A. 692; Gaskins v. Gaskins, 181 Ga. 124, 181 S.E. 850; Moore v. State, 118 Ohio St. 487, 161 N.E. 532. For this error there m......