People ex rel. Town of Plattsburgh v. Williams

New York Supreme Court

People ex rel. Town of Plattsburgh v. Williams

29 Misc. 463, 2 Liquor Tax Rep. 192, 61 N.Y.S. 983

DecidedNovember 15, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 29 Misc. 463 (People ex rel. Town of Plattsburgh v. Williams) 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. Town of Plattsburgh v. Williams, 29 Misc. 463, 2 Liquor Tax Rep. 192, 61 N.Y.S. 983 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Kellogg, J.

Application is made by the relator for a writ of mandamus to compel-the treasurer .of Clinton county to pay over to the town of Plattsburgh the liquor "tax money received from licenses issued in the town of Plattsburgh since May 1, 1899.

This application is based upon the wording of an act passed in 1898 (Chap. 135), to amend an act of 1894 (Chap. 471), relating to the same subject. In 1894 all the excise money paid for licenses in the town of Plattsburgh went to the treasurer of the board of alms, as a poor fund. The amendment follows in this respect the wording of the old law disregarding the provisions of the Liquor Tax Law, chapter 112, of the Laws of 1896, by which one-third of such money was to be paid by the county treasurer to the State.

I cannot think that the Legislature intended this amendment of 1898 to divert from the State Treasury, that one third, while all other towns in the State must contribute one-third for State purposes. This would be such a discrimination in favor of the town of Plattsburgh as to excite grave question as to its cause. There appears to have been some blundering in the use of words in the amendatory act. The fair, and I think the proper construction, [464]*464must confine the meaning of this amendment to such money as the State does not, by the Liquor Tax Law, appropriate to itself for •State purposes.

The application is, therefore, denied, but without costs.

Application denied, without costs.

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

Kellogg, J.

Application is made by the relator for a writ of mandamus to compel-the treasurer .of Clinton county to pay over to the town of Plattsburgh the liquor "tax money received from licenses issued in the town of Plattsburgh since May 1, 1899.

This application is based upon the wording of an act passed in 1898 (Chap. 135), to amend an act of 1894 (Chap. 471), relating to the same subject. In 1894 all the excise money paid for licenses in the town of Plattsburgh went to the treasurer of the board of alms, as a poor fund. The amendment follows in this respect the wording of the old law disregarding the provisions of the Liquor Tax Law, chapter 112, of the Laws of 1896, by which one-third of such money was to be paid by the county treasurer to the State.

I cannot think that the Legislature intended this amendment of 1898 to divert from the State Treasury, that one third, while all other towns in the State must contribute one-third for State purposes. This would be such a discrimination in favor of the town of Plattsburgh as to excite grave question as to its cause. There appears to have been some blundering in the use of words in the amendatory act. The fair, and I think the proper construction, [464]*464must confine the meaning of this amendment to such money as the State does not, by the Liquor Tax Law, appropriate to itself for •State purposes.

The application is, therefore, denied, but without costs.

Application denied, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Misc. 463, 2 Liquor Tax Rep. 192, 61 N.Y.S. 983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-town-of-plattsburgh-v-williams-nysupct-1899.