State ex rel. Hendricks v. Newton
| Decision Date | 11 November 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 12970.,12970. |
| Citation | 206 S.W. 392 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. HENDRICKS v. NEWTON et al., County Judges. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Adair County; N. M. Pettingill, Special Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
Mandamus by the State, on the relation of George W. Hendricks, to compel G. G. Newton, Ray Bennett, and A. J. Houston, Judges of the County Court of Adair County, Mo. to issue to relator a license to keep pool and billiard tables in Kirksville. From a judgment denying the writ, relator appeals. Affirmed.
Weatherby & Frank, of Kirksville, for appellant.
Higbee & Mills, of Kirksville, for respondents.
Relator, on October 23, 1916, brought mandamus against the judges of the county court of Adair county to compel them to issue him a license to keep pool and billiard tables at a certain location in Kirksville pursuant to an application made by him to said county court praying for such license for 12 months from July 1, 1916. The alternative writ was issued, the county judges made return thereto, and the case was tried at the October term, 1917, resulting in the refusal of the circuit court to grant the peremptory writ and the quashing of the alternative writ. Relator has appealed.
Passing, and without deciding, the point made by respondents that, since the time for the license sought had expired at the time the case was tried, therefor the case is merely academic and moot, we observe that the gist of relator's claim that he is entitled to a peremptory writ is that upon the hearing of his application for a license the county judges arbitrarily refused to grant him a license. There is no claim that the county court refused to hear his application or the evidence thereunder, but that applicant introduced evidence that he was a fit and suitable person to conduct pool and billiard tables, that the place was fit and suitable, and that no evidence to the contrary was offered, but that nevertheless the judges refused to grant said license and did so arbitrarily.
The return to the alternative writ set up that the county court heard the application and all evidence bearing thereon, and that the judges "in the exercise of their sound judicial discretion refused said application," and denied having acted arbitrarily.
The record of the county court recites that the application was heard and that the court, "after having duly considered same, doth refuse to issue said license."
It may be conceded that it was the duty of the county court to hear and consider the application and the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. Empire Storage & Ice Co.
... ... 965; Schumacher v. Breweries Co., 247 Mo ... 141, 152 S.W. 13; State ex rel. Peoples Bank of Sumner v ... Melton, 213 Mo.App. 662, 251 S.W ... ...
-
State ex rel. Kopper Kettle Restaurants, Inc. v. City of St. Robert
...512(4); Mangieracina, supra, 141 S.W.2d at 92(7); State ex rel. Hultz v. Bowman, Mo.App., 294 S.W. 107, 109(3); State ex rel. Hendricks v. Newton, Mo.App., 206 S.W. 392, 393; State ex rel. Wagener v. Cook, Mo.App., 187 S.W. 1122, 1123(2); Journal Printing Co., supra, 183 Mo.App. at 481, 167......
-
State v. Harris
...County Court of Dunklin County, 23 Mo. 449, 454; State ex rel. v. Rombauer, 125 Mo. 632, 635, 28 S. W. 968; State ex rel. Hendricks v. Newton (Mo. App.) 206 S. W. 392; State ex rel. v. Broaddus, 207 Mo. 107, 121-122, 105 S. W. 629. Although the county court has a discretion in the matter un......
-
The State ex rel. Hawkins v. Harris
...State ex rel. McClanahan v. De Witt, 160 Mo.App. 304; State ex rel. v. County Court of Clinton County, 193 Mo.App. 373; State ex rel. v. Newton, 206 S.W. 392; State rel. v. Johnson, 211 S.W. 682, and also the case of City of Tarkio v. Cook, 120 Mo. 1, are discussed in the majority and concu......