Orvis v. Thompson
New York Supreme Court
FROM the return to the certiorari in this cause, it appeared that the plaintiff in error was prosecuted by the defendant in error, qui'tdm. &c.‘ before it justice of the peace, to recover the penalty of 25 dollars for selling strong li-quors by retail, without having a license according to the' act.
Read the full summary
FROM the return to the certiorari in this cause, it appeared that the plaintiff in error was prosecuted by the defendant in error, qui'tdm. &c.‘ before it justice of the peace, to recover the penalty of 25 dollars for selling strong li-quors by retail, without having a license according to the' act. (Laws of N. T, Vol. 1. p. 484= § 1. 3.) The defen-' dant below had been appointed ahd licensed as a tavern-keeper, at a meeting of the supervisor and eight justices and commissioners of excise, by a majority óf them present,' 'and lus"license was signed1 by five oí - the nistices, but not , by the…
1Per curiam
The license produced by the defendant below, was valid. The act of a majority of the commissioners of excise, was sufficient, and it was so considered in the case of Palmer, qui tam. &c. v. Downey, decided in this cpurt, in October term, 1801. The supervisor may, in his "discretion, associate more than two justices with him, as *502commissioners of excise. The number is not limited by the act to three and no more. The consent of the supervisor is not indispen sable If a majority of the commissioners present sign the license, it is sufficient. The judgment below, must be reversed?
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by2 opinions
- People v. CookNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Ex parte RogersNew York Supreme Court · 1827