People ex rel. Silkens v. McGlyn

New York Supreme Court

People ex rel. Silkens v. McGlyn

16 N.Y.S. 736, 69 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 237, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 160, 62 Hun 237, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2213

DecidedDecember 14, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 16 N.Y.S. 736 (People ex rel. Silkens v. McGlyn) 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

People ex rel. Silkens v. McGlyn, 16 N.Y.S. 736, 69 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 237, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 160, 62 Hun 237, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2213 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard, P. J.

The revocation of the license was without legal justification. The license is granted on conditions. It may be revoked for a violation of these conditions, or a violation of any of them. Complaint was made against the relator to the board of excise, averring that the relator kept his saloon open at irregular hours, and that the house was disorderly: The hearing was set down for July 13, 1891. The relator appeared, and denied the charges. The board vacated the license without proof other than that in-, ferred from the character and standing of the complainants. The excise act (chapter 549, Laws 1873, § 4) intended to give the accused a hearing, and power to obtain witnesses. The board of excise must be satisfied of the relator’s violation of the terms of his license. This does not mean that an assurance of guilt by men of good character should be sufficient, when the guilt is denied by the accused party. The decision is subject to review. People v. Forbes, (Sup.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 757. The order of the board of excise should therefore be reversed, with costs. All concur.

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

Barnard, P. J.

The revocation of the license was without legal justification. The license is granted on conditions. It may be revoked for a violation of these conditions, or a violation of any of them. Complaint was made against the relator to the board of excise, averring that the relator kept his saloon open at irregular hours, and that the house was disorderly: The hearing was set down for July 13, 1891. The relator appeared, and denied the charges. The board vacated the license without proof other than that in-, ferred from the character and standing of the complainants. The excise act (chapter 549, Laws 1873, § 4) intended to give the accused a hearing, and power to obtain witnesses. The board of excise must be satisfied of the relator’s violation of the terms of his license. This does not mean that an assurance of guilt by men of good character should be sufficient, when the guilt is denied by the accused party. The decision is subject to review. People v. Forbes, (Sup.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 757. The order of the board of excise should therefore be reversed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 N.Y.S. 736, 69 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 237, 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 160, 62 Hun 237, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-silkens-v-mcglyn-nysupct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack