117 So. 187 | Ala. | 1928
Relator applied to the city commission of Birmingham for a license to operate a dance hall. License was refused, and, his petition for mandamus having been denied, relator appeals.
Relator's argument, in short, is that, since the city government has passed an ordinance providing for the licensing of dance halls, it had no right to deny his application summarily, as it did.
According to section 2164 of the Code, municipal authorities have the right and power "to license, tax, regulate, restrain, or prohibit theatrical and other amusements, billiard and pool tables, nine or tenpin alleys, box or ball alleys, shooting galleries, theatres, parks and other paces of amusement when in the opinion of the council the public good or safety demands it to refuse to license any or all such business and to authorize the mayor by proclamation to cause any or all houses or places of amusement or houses or places for the sale of firearms or other deadly weapons, to be closed for a period of not longer than the next meeting of the city or town council."
They also have the right and power (section 2165) "to revoke and cancel any and all licenses issued to any house of public entertainment or house or place where firearms or other deadly weapons are kept for sale, when in their judgment the public safety, peace, good order, or decency, may require it; and when the owner thereof, or person operating the same, shall have been convicted of any violation of the city or town ordinances regulating such business, the council may cancel the license."
Relator seems to concede that, since dance halls must be classified as public places of amusement or entertainment, the municipal authorities, in the exercise of the police power conferred upon them in the matter of licenses by section 2154 of the Code, would have the right and power summarily to revoke and cancel a license, had one been issued *565
to him, whenever in their judgment the public safety, peace, good order, or decency so required. If relator intended to carry on some necessary or useful business, a different rule would apply. Walker v. Birmingham,
The demurrer properly raises the point (Lewis v. Jenkins,
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.