Wilson v. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 12 July 1902
• Citation: 69 S.W. 570,70 Ark. 545
• Parties: WILSON v. LAWRENCE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

69 S.W. 570

70 Ark. 545

WILSON v. LAWRENCE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

July 12, 1902

Appeal from Sevier Circuit Court WILL P. FEAZEL, Judge.

Reversed.

Scott Lake & Head, for appellants.

An inhabitant is a citizen. 10 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 770; 52 Ark 164; 43 Ark. 549; 40 Ark. 296; 5 F. 527; 34 F. 819; 57 id 529; 129 U.S. 315; 24 So. Rep. 680; 36 N.J.L. 368; 59 N.E. 619; 62 P. 194; 81 Ill. 541; 36 S.W. 1129; 88 F. 227; 5 F. 145.

F. H. Taylor, for appellees.

The petition must contain a majority of the inhabitants. 56 Ark. 110; 51 Ark. 159. The construction of the word "inhabitant" is governed by the connection in which it is used. 16 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), 328; 27 Conn. 9; 5 Mason, 35; 3 Ill. 377; 122 Mass. 594; 90 F. 6; 36 Conn. 85; 4 Ala. 622; 6 Pet. 761; 4 Harr. (Del.) 383; 6 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), 14; 10 id. 18; 43 Ark. 550. No definite period of residence is required. Minor. Confl. Laws. §§ 60, 21; id. 124.

OPINION

BUNN, C. J.

On the first day of January, 1902, petitioners, W. A. Wilson et al., filed their petition in the Sevier county court, under the statute, praying that the court make an order forbidding the sale or giving away of any intoxicating liquors of the kind as named in the statute within three miles of the Horatio school house, situated in the southwest quarter of southwest quarter of section 31, township 9 south, range 31 west, in the town of Horatio, Sevier county, Arkansas. Thereupon S. R. Lawrence et al. asked to be made parties to the proceeding, and, on leave being granted, they filed their remonstrance. On the 6th day of January, 1902, the county court sustained the petition of the prohibitionists, and the remonstrants appealed to the circuit court, where they succeeded in obtaining judgment in their favor and against the prohibitionists, thus setting aside the judgment of the county court. The petitioners for the prohibition order then appealed to this court

The sole question in the case is as to the relative number of signers of the petition to the whole adult population qualified to vote on the question. It was agreed that there were 374 names signed to the petition for prohibition. The remonstrants had in the meantime caused a census of the "adult inhabitants" of the territory embraced within the statutory three miles to be taken, and the same was presented to the circuit court on the trial of the cause de novo on appeal from the county court.

The statute on the subject is as follows, to-wit:

Section 4877, Sandels & Hill's Digest: "Whenever the adult inhabitants residing within three miles of any school house, academy, college, university, or other institution of learning, or of any church house in this state, shall desire to prohibit the sale or giving away of any vinous, spirituous or intoxicating liquors of any kind, or alcohol, or any compound or preparation thereof, commonly called tonics or bitters, and a majority of such inhabitants shall petition the county court of the county wherein such institution of learning or church house is situated, praying that the sale or giving away of the intoxicating liquors and alcohol enumerated in the premises be prohibited within three miles of any such institution of learning or church house, said county court, upon being satisfied that a majority of such inhabitants have signed such petition, shall make an order in accordance with the prayer thereof, and thereafter, for a period of two years, it shall be unlawful for any person to vend or give away any spirituous vinous, or intoxicating liquors of any kind, or alcohol, or any preparation thereof, commonly called tonics or bitters, within the limits aforesaid.

"Sec. 4878. For the purposes of this act females, as well as males, are competent subscribers to the petition herein provided for."

According to the findings and judgment of the circuit court, the petition of the prohibitionists contained 374 legal signers. In fact, this was in the agreed statement of facts. The circuit court also found that there were 749 in the district authorized to petition or vote on the question, and therefore that the prohibition petition lacked one of containing a majority of such inhabitants of the district.

The contention of the appellants here is that many of the persons who signed the remonstrance were not qualified to sign the same, were not qualified adult inhabitants within the district, and that the names of such should be taken from the whole number as alleged, and that, if that were done, the majority of the whole would be less than 374, and in such case the judgment should be reversed, and rendered for appellants. Appellants designate persons who were not competent according to their contention, and there is evidence on the subject.

The circuit court made its declaration of law, defining the phrase "adult inhabitants," as used in the statute which was expressed in the following language, to-wit: "Adult inhabitants, within the meaning of the law, means all males over the age of 21 years and females over the age of 18 years, in a certain territory, as applied to the so-called 'three-mile law.' That any of said persons, who have a permanent or fixed place of abode for some definite period of time, for the purpose of labor or other work or business, is an inhabitant of the district or territory in which they reside for the purpose of...