1 Ind. L. Rep. 563 | Ind. | 1881
— The appellant applied to the board of commissioners of Monroe county for a license to sell intoxicating liquors. Charles Blake appeared before the commissioners, and, describing himself as a remonstrant, moved to dismiss the application, assigning, in support of his motion:
1st. That the application did not show that the applicant was an inhabitant of the ward in which the place where the liquor was to be sold was situated; and,
2d. That the application did not describe the precise location of the premises in which appellant proposed to retail liquor.
The board sustained this motion, and the applicant appealed to the circuit court. The commissioners renewed this motion in the circuit court, and it was again sustained. From this ruling this appeal is taken.
The definition given the word “inhabitant” by this court in Ex parte Laboyteaux, 65 Ind. 545, is directly in favor of the position here assumed by appellant upon the first ground stated in Blake’s motion to dismiss. In that case it was said : “The act says that any male, inhabitant having certain other qualifications may obtain a license by certain proceedings, which it prescribes. That designation applies alike, we think, to all the male inhabitants of the State of the class, to which a license may be granted, without reference to their residence in any particular place in this State.”
The second ground stated in remonstrant’s motion is without foundation. The premises are described with great particularity. It is true, as Blake’s counsel assert, that the statute does require that a particular description shall be given by the applicant, but no more is meant than a description so reasonably full and certain as to point out the exact location of the premises. It is not meant that there shall be a detailed description of the kind of a house, or any such thing as that.
The board of commissioners here move to dismiss the ap
Judgment reversed, at the costs of appellee.