Opinion
No. 18,295.
Decided October 26, 1959.
From a judgment affirming the action of city council in granting a beverage license the protestants bring error.
Affirmed.
1. CERTIORARI — Appeal and Error — Transcript of Proceedings — Sufficiency. Where the record of proceedings before a licensing authority is deficient, in that it contains no transcript and no findings; it will not be remanded for adequate findings where the evidence would not support a result other than the granting of the license.
2. INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Remonstrances — Defined Neighborhood — Granting of License — Review. Where remonstrances against the granting of a beverage license were signed by others than those resident in the defined neighborhood of the licensee's outlet, and its issuance supported by several hundred persons resident in the immediate neighborhood, the petitions supporting the application were sufficient to justify its issuance, and there being nothing too indicate that the city counsel acted arbitrarily or capriciously in granting the license, the courts will not interfere.
Error to the District Court of Jefferson County, Hon. Christian D. Stoner, Judge.
Mr. FREDERICK P. CRANSTON, Mr. L. JAMES ARTHUR, for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. GEORGE M. GRABER, for defendants in error Mayor and City Council of the City of Arvada.
Mr. HAROLD D. LUTZ, for defendants in error Henderson.
Mr. DUKE W. DUNBAR, Attorney General, Mr. FRANK E. HICKEY, Deputy, Mr. JOHN B. BARNARD, JR., for defendant in error George J. Baker, Secretary of State.
WE will refer to the plaintiffs in error as the protestants. Defendants in error were the Mayor and the individual members of the Arvada City Counsel; George J. Baker, Secretary of State, and the Hendersons, successful applicants for license to dispense malt beverage — 3.2 beer.
After hearing, the Secretary of State ordered the issuance of the license, and it was concurred in by the City Council. By this writ of error protestants seek to reverse the action of the licensing authorities, affirmed by the district court, in granting the license. Fourteen of the protestants are residents of the area surrounding the proposed beverage outlet. Three are pastors of religious congregations of the city.
In considering this writ of error on the merits we do not approve the record filed here. Like many presented in response to writ of certiorari, the contents are deficient in that there is no transcript of the proceedings and no findings by the licensing authority. As was said in Buddy Lloyd's Store No. 1, Inc. v. city Council, 139 Colo. 152, 337 P.2d 389, it would be futile to remand the cause for findings because the evidence before the licensing authorities could not support any another result than granting of the application.
This is the first license of this kind to be issued in the city of Arvada. The remonstrances against the issuance of the license were obtained from members of the congregations of several churches in Arvada and were signed by others than those in the defined neighborhood wherein the licensee's outlet is located. The petition was supported by several hundred persons in the immediate neighborhood. Had the licensing authorities insisted on perpetuation a policy of blanket denial of applications for 3.2 malt beverage licenses, this court, as in the Buddy Lloyd's case, would be compelled to hold such local public contrary to law. However, in the present instance the members of the City Council abandoned the local policy and approved this first license. The petitions supported the application were sufficient to sustain the action of the licensing authorities and there is nothing to indicate that the decision was arbitrary or capricious or otherwise such as to justify interference by the courts.
The judgment is affirmed.