*1 785 it trial erred in mod stipulation, cannot be said that the court custody prevent being to ifying the decree so as the children from transported weekly Myers, Florida, Adel, Fort and between Georgia,- by this, summer months. error during the shown No is . remaining the enumeration of error sole (cid:127) Judgment part. in reversed in All part; the Justices affirmed concur. et al. Chairman,
26070. v. MULHERIN, GOLDBERG Goldberg filed an application Justice. William Undercoklbb, a County with the of for Board Commissioners of Richmond wine, application license to sell and was whiskey. beer His Superior denied. complaint filed a in the of Rich- He Court mond County alleging he had all the re- complied with of quirements County regulating wine, of of Richmond the sale whiskey sought beer requiring and and a absolute, mandamus the beverage sought defendants to issue the alcoholic license by him.
The defendants filed a to motion the action it dismiss because
failed to show on its plaintiff legal face that the had a clear right to the license and a matter of because its issuance is privilege and completely govern- within the discretion of the ing of authority County. Richmond granted and trial the motion of the defendant dis- The court complaint. appeal from judgment. missed the is that The Held: Legalize The “Revenue Tax to and Alcoholic Bev
1. Act Control erages Liquors” (Ga. pp. 103, 121; 1937-38, Sess., and L. Ex. sale 58-1068), Ann. declares that the and manufacture; Code § spirituous liquors of “privilege distribution is a in this State man-, right.” and not a “to to the of Also, entitle one writ appear legal it that he damus, right must has a clear to have performed particular the act which he seeks to have enforced.” Harmon James, 742, (38 City v. 401); SE2d 200 Ga. 744 of East Weathers, (126 675). Point v. 133, 218 Ga. 136 SE2d right “since no an Therefore, one has- inherent engage in to such a business, which can be made proper subject the for en by forcement the writ of mandamus —this court will .not . . . into inquire the of reposed exercise discretion lawfully
786 or determine whether council to mayor and
in the defendant
arbitrarily or
or
grossly abused
has been
discretion
not such
(48
Withers,
The itself matter addresses privilege a is a which right rather than than this court. legislature rather to the ap- of the in contention no merit this there is follows that It pellant. equal pro- denied that he has been appellant
2. contends The of the the Fourteenth Amendment tection the laws under of a granted he not license was Federal 'Constitution because agree with this wine, whiskey. and do beer, to sell We not involved privilege, a mere right, contention. no but “Since is to assert the denial here, petitioner position the is in a not right guaranteed by of a or Federal Constitution.” the State City supra; Kicklighter Jesup, 744, 747, v. Ga. 219 of (190 571). City 4) Atlanta, (3, McKown v. 221 SE 184 Ga. of argued considered 3. Enumerations of error not are abandoned. judgment It follows of court that the the trial must be Affirmed. except J., All the who dissents. concur, Felton, Justices Argued September 8, 1970. 16, October 1970Decided D. Watkins, appellant. John for Pierce, Franklin for appellee. H. is con- my opinion this case dissenting. In Justice,
Felton, interpret U. As I Maryland, v. 340 S. 268. by trolled Niemotko exercise completely the it out the decision in case rules this thing sought the discretion whether arbitrary of and unbridled granted to citizens right privilege or a mere in the citizen is a grant of authority for the outlawed conditionally. The court anywhere; no nar- appear stating: standards privilege a “No circumscribing no of this absolute limitations; rowly drawn community to be served. interest of the power; substantial no invalidity of said been about the clear that all that has is It applicable here.” equally be discretion must limitless such