In re Place

This proceeding was begun December 23, 1896, by Prank Place, special agent of the commissioner of excise of this state, to procure the revocation of a' liquor tax certificate issued July 1, 1896, to Frank Matty, authorizing him to sell liquors at Nos. 301 and 303, corner of South Warren and East Fayette streets, in the city of Syracuse, on the ground that material statements in his application for such certificate were false, and that he was not entitled to receive, and not entitled to hold, such certificate. An order was granted by a justice of the supreme court requiring Frank Matty to show cause why the prayer of the petition should not be granted. He appeared and answered, and upon the issue joined a trial was had, which resulted in a dismissal of the proceeding. An entrance to this "alleged hotel is on East Fayette street, and is conceded to be within 200 feet of St. Peter’s Church, a building occupied exclusively as a church, and situate on that street. The real estate is owned by Joseph Dunfee, who occupied some portion of it before March 4, 1893. June 10, 1892, a license (No. 376) was granted, pursuant to chapter 401 of the Laws of 1892, to Joseph Dunfee, the owner of the premises, to sell liquors at No. 301 or No. 303, or at both numbers; the particular number or place not being identified. Whether it was a license to sell as a storekeeper, as a druggist, or to sell spirituous and malt liquors to be drank on the premises, or to sell malt liquor only to be drank on the premises, does not appear. This license expired May 2, 1893. March 4, 1893, Frank Matty, the respondent, leased of Joseph Dunfee some portion of these premises, and evidently the portion in which Dunfee was then engaged in selling liquors. May 2, 1893. a license was granted to Frank Matty by the board of excise, authorizing him to sell liquor on these premises for one year, which license was renewed in 1894 and in 1895. What kind of licenses these were does not appear, nor does it appear to which street number they related. July 1, 1896, Frank Matty opened both numbers, or a portion of them, as an hotel, and on that day received from the county treasurer a tax certificate authorizing him to sell liquors as an hotel keeper. Before this date no hotel had ever been kept on the premises, wdiich were not so occupied on the 27th day of June, 1896, when Frank Matty verified his application for the tax certificate. It is contended that the county treasurer was authorized to issue the liquor tax certificate of July 1, 1896, and that it is valid on two grounds: (1) That traffic in liquors was “lawfully carried on” at Nos. 301 and 303, March 23,1896, when the liquor tax law took effect; (2) that Nos. 301 and 303 were “occupied for an hotel” July 1, 1896, when the tax certificate was issued.

Before discussing this case, the statutes bearing on it will be collated. They are as follows:

■ “Sec. 43. No person or persons who shall not have been licensed prior to the-passage of this act, shall hereafter be licensed to sell strong or spirituous liquors, wine, ale and beer, in any building not used for hotel purposes, and for which a license does not exist at the time of the passage of this act, which shall be on the same street or avenue and within two hundred feet of a building occupied exclusively as a church or a school-house. The measurements shall be taken between the principal entrances! of the buildings used for such church or school purposes and the.place for which an application for a license has been made.”

•This section was amended by chapter 480 of the Laws of 1893 (which took effect April 29, 1893) so that it provided:

“Sec. 43. No person or persons who shall not have been licensed prior to the passage of this act, shall hereafter be licensed to sell strong or spirituous liquors, wines, ale and beer, in any building not used for hotel purposes, and for which a license does not exist at the time of the passage of this act, which shall be on the same street or avenue and within two hundred feet of a building occupied exclusively as a church or school-house. The measurements shall be taken ,from the center of the nearest entrance of the building used for such church or school purposes to the center of the nearest entrance of the place for which an application for a license has been made: provided, however, that a board of excise may, in its discretion, grant permission, in the manner herein provided, to-transfer a license from premises within the limits above mentioned to other premises within said limits, but at a greater distance from the principal entrance of a church or school.”

Section 24 of chapter 112 of the Laws of 1896 (the liquor tax law),, which took effect March 23, 1896), provided:

“Sec. 24. Traffic in liquor shall not be permitted: * * * (2) Under the provisions of subdivision one of section eleven of this act, in any building, yard,, booth or other place which shall be on the same street or avenue and within two-hundred feet of a building occupied exclusively as a church or a school house; the measurements to be taken from the center of the nearest entrance of the building used for such church or school to the center of the nearest entrance of the place in which such liquor traffic is desired to be carried on: provided, however, that this prohibition shall not apply to a place which is occupied for -a hotel, nor to a place in which such traffic in liquors is actually lawfully carried on when this act takes effect, nor to a place which at such date is occupied, or in process of construction, by a corporation or association which traffics in liquors solely with the members thereof, nor to a place within such limit to which a corporation or association trafficking in liquors solely with the members thereof, when this act takes effect may remove: provided, however, such place to which corporation or association may so remove, shall be located within two hundred feet of the place in which such corporation or association so traffics in liquors when this act takes effect.”

This section was amended by chapter 312 of the Laws of 1897 (which took effect April 20, 1897), but the amendment does not relate to the case at bar, as the transactions all occurred before that date.

This appeal will first be discussed on the respondent’s theory that Nos. 301 and 303 were both lawfully occupied for the traffic in liquors by him and by his predecessor from June 10, 1892, to July 1, 1896, though the" evidence, which will be hereinafter referred to, tends strongly to show that but one of these numbers was so occupied which one was more than 200 feet from St. Peter’s Church. Section 43 of chapter 401 of the Laws of 1892, as amended by chapter 480 of the Laws of 1893, was construed in People v. Murray, 13 Misc. Rep. 522 , 34 N. Y. Supp. 689 , reversed 148 N. Y. 171 , 42 N.

The first question presented is whether this transfer was authorized by the statutes then in existence. Under the decision of the court of appeals before referred to, it is apparent that the board of excise had no powder to grant at that date a license to Frank Matty to sell liquors within 200 feet of the church. What the board could not do directly, it could not accomplish indirectly. It not being within the power of the board to authorize Frank Matty to sell liquors at that place by an original license issued to him, it was not within its power to grant this privilege by consenting to an assignment of a license to a person not authorized to receive one. He wTas not a person who could be licensed to sell at that place. This

Thus far the appeal has been discussed on the theory that the licenses issued prior to the tax certificate were to sell liquor at Ros. 301 and 303. Frank Matty testified that when he went into possession, his premises were more than 200 feet from St Peter’s Church, and that he afterwards added to the premises first occupied by him a 22-foot store, which brought the entrance to his place within 146 or 148 feet of the entrance of the church. He also testified that he began paying additional rent for his enlarged place of business June 1, 1896, and from this evidence it is inferable that prior to the date of the present tax certificate he had no license to sell liquor within 200 feet of the church, and that no license had been granted to sell liquor at both numbers,—301 and 303.

I think it cannot be successfully contended, under any of these acts, that, in case a license existed authorizing a person to sell liquor just outside of the prescribed limits, he can, by renting an adjoining building within 200 feet of a church, and cutting an opening between them, become entitled to a license to sell liquors in the buildings so united, the entrance to which is, as in this case, within less than 200 feet of a church.

It is contended that July 1, 1896, Ros. 301 and 303 were occupied for an hotel, and therefore the tax. certificate is valid. It is said that the verb “is” in the following clause, “that this prohibition shall not apply to a place which is occupied for an hotel,” does not relate to the date when the act took effect, but to the date when a certificate is issued, and that the words should be interpreted to mean, “is or shall be occupied for an hotel.” Under this interpretation an hotel could at any time after the law took effect be erected or opened within 200 feet of a school or church, and the keeper obtain a tax certificate. Such, I think, was not the intention of the legislature. By chapter 312 of the Laws of 1897 this subdivision was amended so it now reads: “'That this prohibition shall not apply to

“The term ‘hotel’ as used in this act shall mean a building or place which is regularly kept open for the feeding and lodging of guests, and in which there shall be at least ten furnished bedrooms for their occupancy if situate in any city, incorporated village, or within two miles of the corporate limits of either; and at least six bedrooms if situate in any other place.”

Frank Matty was sworn, and described his hotel. He testified that it had ten bedrooms,—two on the second floor and eight on the first floor. The two on the second floor were furnished, and had windows, and they seemed to be bedrooms in the ordinary acceptation of the term. The eight bedrooms on the first floor are described as follows: Five are 7 feet and 3 inches long, and vary in width from 5 feet and 8 inches to 7 feet and 2 inches; two are 16 feet and 6 inches long and 12 feet wide; and one is 9 feet and 6 inches long and 7 feet and 3 inches wide. In five of these bedrooms were single beds and mattresses complete. The other three do not appear to have been furnished. He testified that these eight bedrooms were divided by board partitions 1 inch thick, papered on both sides, which were only 7 feet and 1 inch in height; that the ceiling above these bedrooms was over 9 feet above the floor, and that none of these so-called bedroom partitions extends within two feet of the ceiling. Four of these bedrooms were lighted by windows, and four were dark. These rooms were not bedrooms, within any fair definition of the word, and only five of the eight bedrooms on the first floor were furnished as such, as required by the section last quoted. This building, at the time this liquor tax certificate was issued, and at the time of the trial of this proceeding, was not an hotel within the

The judgment should be reversed, and the liquor tax certificate issued to the respondent canceled, with costs in favor of the relator, to be taxed.

HARDIN, P. J., and GREEN, J., concur.

I am inclined to think that the evidence in this case was sufficient to sustain the conclusion that the transfer by Joseph Dunfee to the defendant, Matty, in the month of March, 1893, of the license held by the former was of such a character as to confer upon the transferee the legal right to traffic in liquors at the place where that business was conducted. Upon the hearing the defendant attempted to show what steps had been taken to obtain such transfer, and thereupon the petitioner’s counsel stated in open court that he should not dispute the fact that the transfer was made at the time the defendant said it was. This, I think, was equivalent to stipulating that the transfer was regularly made; and, as it is conceded that the defendant’s license thus obtained was. renewed each year, it would seem to follow that he was actually and lawfully carrying on the business of trafficking in liquors at' his saloon on the 23d day of March, 1896; and, had he been content to have rested his right to a tax certificate upon this fact, I fail to see why he would not have established that right within the provisions of section 24 of the liquor tax law (chapter 112, Laws 1896, as amended by chapter 312, Laws 1897).

It seems, however, that the defendant entertained some doubt respecting his right to maintain a saloon the nearest entrance to which was within less than 200 feet of St. Paul’s Church, and, in order to obviate this difficulty, and remove the doubt, he attempted, before applying for his tax certificate, to convert his saloon into an hotel. Upon the hearing before the learned trial justice evidence was given which was designed to show that he had successfully accomplished this metamorphosis, and it was found that the defendant’s place was a legal hotel, that it complied with all the requirements of the law as such, and that the defendant was entitled to conduct his “hotel pursuant to the license obtained by him under chapter 112 of the Laws of 1896.” This finding is, in my opinion, wholly unwarranted by the undisputed facts of the case. Upon the

The order appealed from should consequently be reversed, and his certificate canceled.

HARDIN, P. J., and WARD, J., concur.