Opinion
No. 21311.
Decided July 18, 1966.
From a judgment denying his application for a license to sell, at retail, packaged liquor, the applicant brought error.
Affirmed.
1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Licensing Authority — Discretionary Powers — Denial. County Commissioners did not abuse its discretionary powers in denying applicant's request for a license to sell packaged liquor at retail.
2. Middle Ground — Discretion — Packaged Liquor — Granted or Denied. Record reflects that instant case is securely rooted in "vast middle ground" where local licensing authority in its sound discretion could have either granted or denied the application for a license to sell packaged liquor at retail, and in either event could not thereafter be properly or lawfully charged with any arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable action.
3. Supreme Court — Substitution — Licensing Authority. Supreme Court is not at liberty to substitute its judgment for that of the local licensing authority.
Error to the District Court of Weld County Honorable Dale E. Shannon, Judge.
Plaintiff in error, pro se.
Samuel S. Telep, for defendants in error.
Herman G. Howard filed an application with the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County for a license to sell, at retail, packaged liquor. His application having been denied by the County Commissioners, Howard next sought relief in the courts. However, the district court of Weld County upon its review of this matter upheld the action of the County Commissioners. By writ of error Howard now seeks reversal of this judgment.
The County Commissioners denied Howard's application on the ground, among others, that the applicant had failed to show that the reasonable requirements of the affected neighborhood were not already being met by existing outlets located near, though outside, the neighborhood and for the further reason that the applicant had failed to show that it was the "desire" of those residing in the neighborhood that the application be granted. Howard's position in this court is that the County Commissioners abused its discretionary powers in so finding and that on the basis of the record before it the County Commissioners had the "absolute duty" to grant his application. With this contention we are not in accord.
In our considered view no good purpose would be served by even summarizing, let alone detailing, the evidence adduced at the hearing before the County Commissioners. Suffice it to say that we have reviewed the record before us with great care and are satisfied that the instant case is very securely rooted in that "vast middle ground" where the local licensing authority in its sound discretion could have either granted or denied Howard's application and in either event could not thereafter be properly or lawfully charged with any arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable action.
Stated somewhat differently, whether this application should have been granted is a matter upon which reasonable minds might well differ and such being the case the local licensing authority is not chargeable with any arbitrary or capricious action in its denial of the application. And in our review of a matter of this kind we are simply not at liberty to substitute our judgment for that of the local licensing authority. See Quedens v. J. S. Dillon, 146 Colo. 161, 360 P.2d 984 and Big Top, Inc. v. Hoskinson, 158 Colo. 400, 407 P.2d 26.
The judgment is affirmed.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE SUTTON not participating.