Hyperlawhypertext legal database People ex rel. Doherty v. McKee 112 N.Y.S. 338

← Cases

People ex rel. Doherty v. McKee

112 N.Y.S. 338 Court N.Y. Sup. Ct. English

Delivered by DOWLING, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 338
PEOPLE ex rel. DOHERTY v. McKEE, Special Deputy Com’r of Excise, et al.
(59 Misc. Rep. 368.)
(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.
May, 1908.)

Headnote

Intoxicating Liquors—Licenses—Eligibility for License.
Liquor Tax Law, Laws 1896, p. 60, c. 112, § 17, sudb. 8, as amended by Laws 1908, p. 414. c. 144, providing that no new liquor tax certificate shall be issued for one year following the conviction of a certificate holder of any of certain crimes committed on the licensed premises, does not warrant the refusal of a new certificate because of the conviction of an employs of the certificate holder of one of the crimes on the licensed premises.
Proceeding under Liquor Tax Law, Laws 1896, p. 69, c. 112, § 28, by the people, on relation of James Doherty, against Moses M. McICee, as special deputy commissioner of excise, and Maynard N. Clement, as state commissioner of excise, to compel the issuance of a liquor tax certificate.
Application granted.
Julius M. Mayer, for relator.
H. H. Kellogg, for respondents.

A license issued for the premises in question had been forfeited May 20, 1907, by reason of the conviction of Joseph P. Boyle, an employé of the certificate holder. The certificate holder, James Doherty, on applying for a new certificate, was refused same by the special deputy commissioner of excise upon the ground, that, under subdivision 8, section 17, of the Liquor Tax Law, Laws 1896, p. 60, c. 112, as amended by chapter 144, p. 414, Laws 1908, which took effect April 21, 1908, no new certificate can be issued for the period of one year following the date of the conviction of the certificate holder for certain crimes committed on the licensed premises. The act in question is highly penal in its provisions; its penalties are severe and vigorous. I am of the- opinion that it must be strictly construed, and not extended by implication or construction. It is significant that elsewhere in the act the words of extension to agents and employés are carefully used and reiterated.

The application for an order, directing the issue of a certificate to the petitioner is therefore granted.