In re Smith

New York Supreme Court

In re Smith

1 Liquor Tax Rep. 136

DecidedFebruary 15, 1897

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Liquor Tax Rep. 136 (In re Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Smith, 1 Liquor Tax Rep. 136 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Dickey, J. S. C.

Prom a careful reading of the testimony taken before the referee, I am satisfied that material statements in the application of the holder of the certificate were false, and that he was not entitled to a certificate. His statement that only one dwelling was within two hundred feet of his saloon, and his attaching the consent of Philip E. Schenck as the owner of that dwelling, was a false statement. That dwelling was not within two hundred feet, but the dwelling of this petitioner was within that distance.

While his statement was true as to one dwelling being within the distance, he has not the consent of that owner, so he was not entitled to a certificate. There are plenty of places where liquor is now sold, without starting new places within two hundred feet of property used exclusively for dwellings, and it will do no harm to have it authoritatively understood that certificates will be revoked by courts unless the law is strictly complied with.

This certificate must be revoked and cancelled, Avith $25.00 costs and disbursements against him.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dickey, J. S. C.

Prom a careful reading of the testimony taken before the referee, I am satisfied that material statements in the application of the holder of the certificate were false, and that he was not entitled to a certificate. His statement that only one dwelling was within two hundred feet of his saloon, and his attaching the consent of Philip E. Schenck as the owner of that dwelling, was a false statement. That dwelling was not within two hundred feet, but the dwelling of this petitioner was within that distance.

While his statement was true as to one dwelling being within the distance, he has not the consent of that owner, so he was not entitled to a certificate. There are plenty of places where liquor is now sold, without starting new places within two hundred feet of property used exclusively for dwellings, and it will do no harm to have it authoritatively understood that certificates will be revoked by courts unless the law is strictly complied with.

This certificate must be revoked and cancelled, Avith $25.00 costs and disbursements against him.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Liquor Tax Rep. 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-smith-nysupct-1897.