State ex rel. Smythe v. City of New Orleans

Citations

• 117 La. 715
• 42 So. 245
• 1906 La. LEXIS 757

Syllabus

<p>1.Intoxicating Liquors — Saloons—Permit.</p> <p>The charter of the city required an applicant who wished to open a barroom to obtain a majority of the signatures of the bona fide “property owners” and “householders” within a prescribed radius. Act No. 45, p. 55, 1896, § 21.</p> <p>2. Same — Consent oe Property Owners.</p> <p>This section was amended, and now the council shall not grant any privilege for opening a barroom, except upon the written consent of a majority of the bone fide “property owners.” Act No. 99, p. 224, of 1Ó04.</p> <p>3. Statutes — Repeal—Eeeeot.</p> <p>This issue was not presented in the prior suit. The relator asks for the privilege of opening a barroom at this time. The present statute controls, and not the repealed statute. Relator had acquired no right under the statute which has been repealed.</p> <p>4. Intoxicating Liquors — Saloons—Consent oe Property Owners.</p> <p>Act No. 99, p. 224, of 1904 is a remedial act, which can be enforced and is controlling. From that point of view, relator did not have the required number of signatures.</p> <p>5. Same.</p> <p>Under the repealed statute the civil engineer of the city, whose duty it was to verify the number of signatures and their place ot residence, found that the law, since repealed, had been complied with.</p> <p>6. Same.</p> <p>Under the statute now in force it is evident that the relator’s petition is not signed by a majority of the persons owning the property within the prescribed radius of 300 feet of the proposed barroom.</p> <p>Monroe, X, dissenting.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>