
    Cask 88 — APPEAL TO CIRCUIT COURT
    January 13.
    Evans v. Commonwealth.
    APPEAL FROM LAWRENCE' CIRCUIT COURT.
    L Application por Druggist’s License with Privilege op Selling Liquor. — The statute which requires notice of an application to sell liquor by retail to he posted for ten days at the court house and four other places, does not apply to an application for druggist’s license with privilege to sell liquors.
    2. Same.' — As appellant, upon a motion by him before the county judge for a druggist’s license with privilege to sell liquors, testified that he had sold spirituous liquors in violation of law since the present revenue law went into effect; that he could not tell the number of times that he had done so, and that during the fourteen years he had been in business he or his clerk had been indicted at nearly every court for the illegal sale of liquor, the court properly refused a license, it being easily inferable that the applicant was not a druggist in good faith, hut had assumed the name or business for the purpose of retailing liquors.
    3. Same. — When the applicant for such a license has, within six months next preceding- the application, been selling without the license, the statute makes it the duty of the judge to refuse the license, unless the applicant will, in addition to the regular license tax, pay a sum equal to 20 per cent thereof.
    ALEXANDER LACKEY eor appellant.
    The appellant being a druggist and having given the notice required by law, the county court had no right to refuse to grant him license to retail spirituous and vinous liquors. The fact that he had been indicted for selling liquors did not show that he had assumed the business of a druggist for the purpose of retailing liquors. (Act November 11, 1892, chap. 193, Acts 1891-2-3, pp. 337, 341, 343.)
    WM. J. HENDRICK, Attorney-General, and R. T. BURNS nob APPELLEE.
    Appellant did not comply with the law in that the required number of notices was not posted, and besides, the notice was too vague and uncertain.
   JTJDGE HAZELRIGG

delivered the opinion oe the court.

g&The 'appellant, by motion before tbe county judge of bis county, and after posting for ten days tbe notice of tbe application required of persons who desire to sell spirituous, vinous and malt liquors by retail, sought to1 obtain a druggist’s license with privilege to sell liquors as provided by law. His application was refused, and tbe only argument used by tbe counsel representing tbe appellees in tbe court below is, that tbe notice of tbe application was posted at only four places instead of five, as required by law., A casual examination of tbe statute will show that this notice posted at tbe court house door and at four other places for ten days is intended to- apply only to retail dealers of spirituous, vinous and malt liquors, and not to druggists, as such, -who may sell by tbe quart under certain restrictions and on tbe prescription of a physician, so that if this were the only reason for refusing tbe license tbe applicant’s motion should have prevailed. But, on tbe trial of tbe motion, tbe appellant testified that be bad sold spirituous liquors in violation of law since November 11, 1892 — tbe date of tbe passage of tbe new revenue law, and that be could not tell tbe number of times he bad done so ; that be was in tbe store but little and bis clerk attended to tbe business ; that be bad been in business fourteen years, and that at nearly every court since be began business be or his employe bad been indicted for tbe illegal sale of liquors.

From tbe proof it is easily inferable that the applicant was engaged in tbe business of unlawfully retailing liquors, and that he%as not a druggist in good faith, and had assumed tbe name or business for tbe purpose of retailing liquors. Upon such a state of case tbe court properly refused the application. (Acts 1891-2-3, chapter 103, article 10, subdivision 2, section 16 ; The Kentucky Statutes, section 4206.)

Moreover, section 3 of the same article of chapter 103 of the Acts 1891-2-3 (section 4193 of The Kentucky Statutes) provides that no person shall be granted such a license who has been engaged in a business requiring it and has been selling without the license within six months next preceding his application for license, “ who will not, in addition to the regular license tax, pay a sum equal to twenty per cent thereof.” The applicant made no offer to pay this sum or penalty, and could not do so, because he had violated the law so many times he could not tell the amount due under the section named.

The judgment is affirmed.  