Devin v. Belt

Yellott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Act of 1884, ch. 283, sec. 5, local in its application and designated as the high license law of Prince George’s County, provides that, in addition to the usual license required by the State, all applicants for liquor licenses shall, before obtaining said licenses, pay to the clerk of the Circuit Court the sum of one hundred dollars for the use of the public roads of said county. The Act provides “ that no spirituous or fermented liquors, or alcoholic bitters, shall be sold in any election district of said county.except as provided for by section five,” and it is further enacted, “that each and every applicant, person or persons, house, corporation, company or association shall be recommended to the said clerk by five respectable freeholders of his or their immediate vicinity, as a fit person to traffic in the article.” Having conformed with the provisions of this Act the appellant obtained licenses to sell liquor at his storehouse in the town of Laurel, in Laurel district of Prince George’s County, for the period of one year. The licenses were issued on the 1st of November, 1887.

At its session of 1888 the Legislature of Maryland enacted a law submitting to the voters of Laurel district the question in relation to issuing licenses to sell liquor in that district after the 1st day of May in said year, and the majority of votes determined the question in favor of prohibiting the issuing of licenses in said district. On the first day of June, 1888, the appellant applied ³⁵⁴ to the clerk for transfers of his licenses to sell liquor, from Laurel to an adjoining district, claiming to he > recommended hy five respectable freeholders, living in the immediate vicinity of his new place of business. The transfers were refused hy the clerk, who did not think that the appellant was recommended by five respectable freeholders living in his immediate vicinity. Therrecord contains the recommendation of five persons who were unable to write, and therefore made their marks.

The appellant then applied for a new State license. The clerk refused to grant a new license, because the appellant would not pay the $100 required hy law. He also assigned this as one of his reasons for refusing to make the transfers. Upon this refusal the appellant applied for a writ of mandamus to compel the clerk to issue the new licenses or transfer the old licenses.

The clerk filed his answer, the appellant demurred, and the demurrer was overruled. The appellant then filed a replication, to which there was a demurrer. This demurrer was sustained, and the Court passed an order dismissing the appellant's petition. Erom this order an appeal has been taken.

It does not seem to be necessary to consider and determine many of the questions presented by the argument of counsel, for it is an established principle, that a Court will not issue a mandamus to compel a public officer to perform any act when its performance has been left hy the law-making