Board County Commissioners v. Churchill E. Johnson & Co.

Citations

• 21 Fla. 578

Syllabus

<p>1. An alteration of a petition to tbe County Commissioners for license to sell liquors, wines and beer under Chapter 3416, Acts of 1883, by erasing therefrom the name of the person whom the registered voters understood at the time of the signing to be the person tq whom such license was to be granted, and the inserting therein the name of another person for whom the registered voters had not asked suoh a privilege, is a sufficient reason to justify the County Commissioners in refusing to grant a permit to such other person to obtain license.</p> <p>2. The personal fitness of the party seeking a license for the special privilege of selling liquors, as well as the sale of liquors in the election district, is an essential consideration in the mind of the voter at the time of signing said petition.</p> <p>3. Section 2 of said act does not require the publication of the affidavit to the petition mentioned therein; said act only requires the publication of “the petition and the names and marks thereto attached,”</p> <p>4. “A return to an alternate writ of mandamus should state the facts relied on with such precision and. certainty that the court may be fully advised of all the particulars neeesssary to enable it to pass judgment upon the sufficiency of the return.”</p> <p>5. The act of December 12th, 1855, amended by section 2, Chapter 1009, Act 1859, was abrogated by section 8, Article 6, of the Constitution of 1868.</p> <p>6. The absconding of one of two joint petitioners for license to sell liquors, after the issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus to the Board of County Commissioners which had refused to said petitioners a permit to obtain license, is not a good reason why the peremptory writ should not issue.</p>