Opinion
[No. 117, September Term, 1960.]
Decided January 10, 1961.
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES — No Appeal To Court Of Appeals From Circuit Court For Baltimore County On An Appeal From Board Of Liquor License Commissioners Because No Conflict With Decision Of Other Circuit Court. The instant appeal was from a decision of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County reversing the action of the Board of Liquor License Commissioners of that county in approving a class "B" (on sale) Beer, Wine and Liquor License. It was held that the appeal did not lie because there was no conflict on a point of law with a prior decision of the Circuit Court for Howard County, approving such a license, as required by Code (1957), Art. 2B, § 175(f). pp. 64-65
Decided January 10, 1961.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (RAINE, JR., J.).
Application of Joseph Carl Zacierka to the Board of Liquor License Commissioners of Baltimore County for a class "B" Beer, Wine and Liquor License. From a decision of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, reversing the action of the Commissioners, applicant appealed.
Appeal dismissed, with costs.
The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Sheldon A. Rubenstein, with whom was William T. Evans on the brief, for appellant.
No brief and no appearance for appellees.
An application for a class "B" (on sale) Beer, Wine and Liquor License was approved by the Board of Liquor License Commissioners of Baltimore County, but the action was reversed on appeal to the circuit court. On appeal here it is contended that Judge Raine, in reversing the Board, decided "a point of law at variance with" a decision previously rendered by Judge Macgill in the Circuit Court for Howard County, so as to make the case reviewable under Code (1957), Art. 2B, § 175(f). But we think it is perfectly clear that Judge Raine's decision was predicated upon a finding that the Board's action was arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsupported by substantial evidence. If his finding was erroneous in fact, it would not be reviewable. On the other hand, Judge Macgill's action in affirming the Board in the other case was predicated on a finding that its action was not arbitrary and was supported by substantial evidence. We find no conflict on a point of law. Cf. Good Citizens Community Protective Asso'n v. Board of Liquor License Com'rs of Balto. City, 217 Md. 129, 132, Suttleman v. Bd. of Liquor License Com'rs, 209 Md. 134, 138, and Gianforte v. Bd. of License Com'rs for Balto. City, 190 Md. 492, 499.
Appeal dismissed, with costs.