Vanaman v. Adams

• Citation: Vanaman v. Adams, 74 N.J.L. 125, 65 A. 204 (N.J. 1906)
• Decision Date: 12 November 1906
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: WILLIAM H. VANAMAN, PROSECUTOR, v. RURIC N. ADAMS

65 A. 204

74 N.J.L. 125

VANAMAN

v. ADAMS.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 26, 1906.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

On Certiorari to Court of Common Pleas, Cape May County.

Certiorari by William H. Vanaman against Ruric N. Adams to review an order of the court of common pleas.Reversed.

Argued June 1, 1906, before HENDRICKSON and PITNEY, JJ.

Baker & Harris, for prosecutor.Harry S. Douglass, for defendant

PITNEY, J.This certiorari brings under review an order made by the court of common pleas of Cape May county on May 16, 1906, whereby a license granted to the prosecutor on April 11th was revoked.

The case shows that at the April term Vanaman made application to the common pleas for a hotel license in the borough of Holly Beach.Appended to his application was a certificate signed by 12 persons, who alleged themselves to be freeholders of the township, and an affidavit made by the applicant setting forth that the application was signed by at least 12 freeholders of the township, of whom at least 6 were freeholders of the borough within which the hotel is situate.The application was presented to the court on the opening day of the term, and a license was granted on the following day.Six days later Adams, the respondent herein, presented to the court of common pleas a petition setting forth that Vanaman's application was not recommended by 12 freeholders, and that the court had been imposed upon in the granting of the license.Thereupon a rule to show cause was made why the order granting the license should not be reconsidered, and upon the return of this rule the court of common pleas made the order revoking the license, of which order reversal is now sought.

Upon allowance of the writ of certiorari, this court made an order calling upon the judge of the court of common pleas to certify the facts upon which he based his decision revoking the license, and the substance of the evidence upon which such facts were found.In obedience to this order, the judge has certified that it was proved before him that five of the persons who signed Vanaman's recommendation were not freeholders, and that some of them at least represented to Vanaman that they were freeholders.There is no finding by the court of common pleas that Vanaman was guilty of any fraud in the matter.Upon the evidence that is certified we should have difficulty to find fraud.Moreover, our review by certiorari is limited to questions of law, and it is not for this court to seek out...