In re Barber
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
The court was not authorized to adjourn this proceeding under section 29 of the Liquor Tax Law, to enable the petitioner to make the State Commissioner of Excise a party. The petition and affidavits were insufficient.
Read the full summary
The court was not authorized to adjourn this proceeding under section 29 of the Liquor Tax Law, to enable the petitioner to make the State Commissioner of Excise a party. The petition and affidavits were insufficient. A mere averment that “ no liquor tax certificates have been issued in said town of Bolton, on or since May 1st, 1904, and said James Wilson has not now and has not had a liquor tax certificate or other authority for trafficking in liquors in said town of Bolton since May 1st, 1904,” does not comply with the statute. (Matter of Wheaton v. Slattery, 96 App. Div. 102; Hoorman v.…
1Opinion of the Court
The petition is not made on information and belief, except the paragraph charging the sales of liquor, and this paragraph refers to the affidavits annexed and which are made a part of the petition, in which the sales are sworn to positively, and this has been approved in Matter of Cullinan v. Micha (76 App. Div. 362; affirmed, 173 N. Y. 610; Matter of Wheaton v. Slattery, 96 App. Div. 102.)
In Matter of Hunter, 34 Misc. 389, affirmed, 59 App. Div. 626, the petition did not show that the “ beer ” sold was fermented or malt liquor, hence no violation was charged, and the sale was made three…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In re CullinanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Wheaton v. SlatteryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- In re HunterNew York Supreme Court · 1901