In re Bradley

18, 1897. The alleged violation took place between these dates. The evidence upon the hearing before the referee clearly established that Hall & Scollard did maintain at all times during the period they sold liquors under said certificate at their place of business, in a room where liquors were sold, an inclosed stall and obstruction formed by curtains suspended from wires overhead, which prevented a full view of the entire room by persons present therein, in violation of subdivision “h” of section 31 of the liquor tax law. The evidence also establishes that said Hall & Scollard unlawfully permitted said John McKeough, a person who had been convicted of a felony, as was well known to said Hall & Scollard, to sell and serve liquor upon said premises during the occupancy thereof by said Hall & Scollard, and while they were engaged in the business of selling liquors upon said premises under said certificate, in violation of the provisions of subdivision “f” of section 31 of said liquor tax law. As to Hall & Scollard, it is not seriously contended but that the certificate is revocable as to them upon the alleged violation being established. But Bauber, who took an assignment of the certificate from Hall & Scollard almost immediately after it was issued to them, alleges that by his assignment, which is permitted by law, he acquired property rights in the certificate of which he cannot be deprived by the wrongful acts of Hall & Scollard. Section 27, which authorizes the assignment, provides that the assignee, upon proper application, security, etc., and upon obtaining a proper indorsement thereon by the officer who issued the certificate, may carry on the business at the same place. By section 25 the holder of such a certificate may surrender the same upon ceasing to traffic in liquors, and obtain a rebate thereon for the unexpired term. Thus it is seen that by a proper assignment rishts may be acquired having a definite pecuniary value. The purchaser may employ the certificate to carry on the liquor business, or may convert it into money by a surrender of the certificate and acceptance of the rebate. But it must not be lost sight of that the liquor tax certificate is, after all, in the nature of a license granted by a law enacted under the police power of the legislature. People v. Murray, 149 N. Y. 367 , 44 N. E. 146 . A prominent feature of the law is its restriction upon the traffic. In this case the assignee permitted Hall & Scollard to hold the certificate, and carry on their business thereunder, after the assignment to him, and until the violation aforesaid was committed, without in any manner making it known that a change in the ownership thereof had taken place, and without taking any of the steps, subsequent to assignment, necessary to reduce the certificate to his personal control, or to realize the property value therein. In all probability he intended that Hall & Scollard should hold the certificate so long as they remained customers of his company, during the term for which it was granted, unless for some cause they should go out of business. By taking this course,- the assignee of the certificate permitted Hall & Scollard, to whom it was issued, to remain the possessors and holders thereof, and carry on the liquor business by means thereof. He thereby subjected the certificate to all risks that might attach to it from a violation of the law by them; otherwise, the whole scheme of the statute

providing for a revocation of the certificate for violations could be evaded by a process the simplicity of which would lead to frequent, if not universal, resort thereto. Being satisfied that Hall & Scollard are guilty of the violation of the liquor tax law aforesaid in permitting said McKeough to sell liquors upon their said premises licensed by said liquor tax certificate after knowledge on their part that he had been convicted of a felony, and in maintaining said stalls and obstructions, preventing a full view of the entire room where liquors were sold by persons present therein, and consequently that said Hall & Scollard are not entitled to hold such certificate, the order asked for in the petition is granted, revoking and canceling such certificate, with a provision that the holder of said liquor tax certificate, and any person having such certificate in his possession or control, shall forthwith surrender said certificate to the officer who issued the same, or his successor in office. Costs to the amount of $70 are allowed against the three defendants, Hall, Scollard, and Bauber.

Ordered accordingly.