
    The People ex rel. Charles A. Simons, Pl’ff, v. Joseph Murray et al., as Commissioners, etc., Def’ts.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, Special Term,
    
    
      Filed October 23, 1895.)
    
    1. Ceriorari—Excise commissioners.
    
      Certiorari to review the decision of the excise commissioners, in refusing to grant a liquor license, is to be heard on the affidavit on which the writ was issued, the writ and the return of the commissioners thereto, but not on additional affidavits.
    3. Excise—License—Church.
    The refusal of the excise commissioners to grant a license on the ground that the place, for which the license was sought, was within two hundred feet of a church is not sustained in the absence of proof that the said building was occupied exclusively as a church.
    
      Certiorari to review the decision of the board of excise commisioners of the city of New York, in refusing to grant relator a license to sell liquor on certain premises in said city.
    
      
      Amasa Thornton, for relator; Julius M. Mayer, for board of excise.
   Giegerich, J.

The first question to be determined is, what papers may be considered upon this hearing? At common law only the return to the writ was before the court upon review. In re Eightieth Street, 16 Abb. Prac. 169; People v. Board of Fire Com'rs, 73 N. Y. 457; People ex rel. Peck v. Commissioners Dept. Fire and Buildings, 106 id. 64; 8 St. Rep. 634. Code Civ. Proc. § 2138, has, however, changed the former practice by requiring that the hearing must be upon the “writ and return, and the papers upon which the writ was granted.” Now, therefore, the writ and the papers upon which it was granted must also be looked to (People v. Commissioners Dept. Fire and Buildings, supra; People v. Board of Sup’rs, 2 N. Y. Supp. 555; People v. French, 25 Hun, 111; 10 Abb. N. C. 418), and for the purpose of show- - ing facts “essential to the jurisdiction of the body or officer to make the.determination to be reviewed,” “affidavits or other written proof” may be received (Code Civ. Proc. § 2139; People ex rel. Wright v. Court of Sessions of Ontario Co., 45 Hun, 54; 9 St. Rep. 607; Buckley v. Drake, 9 Civ. Proc. R. 336. Consistently with the practice just enunicated, I am confined, upon this proceeding, to a consideration of the writ and the affidavit upon which it was issued, and to the return of the writ. Various additional affidavits which have been submitted cannot be regarded.

The license was refused ; as appears from the written decision of the commissioners, which is included in th'e return, “for the reason that the place for which a license is sought is on the same street with, and having its nearest entrance within 200 feet of' the nearest entrance to, a building occupied exclusively as a church, and that said premises were not licensed prior to the enactment of chapter 401 of the Laws of 1892, or chapter 480 of the Laws of 1893.” If there is no competent proof of a fact necessary to be proved; the proceedings must upon certiorari be reversed. People ex rel Wright v. Court of Sessions of Ontario Co., supra. The only evidence I can find, in the papers I am permitted to consider as before me, of the fact that the building in question was occupied exclusively as a church, is in the report made to the excise board, and signed by D. Hoyle, general inspector, that “the building was a residence, but the two first floors have been -thrown together, and changed into a church. Over the church is the residence of the pastor and of the janitor, all in the same building.” Here is no statement that the portion of the building which has been changed into a church yms used exclusively as such, nor that the portions occupied by the pastor and janitor are used exclusively for purposes of residence, nor that there are not other portions of the building devoted to still other uses. Neither the writ nor the petition upon which it was issued supplies these defects. It may be unnecessary to remark, after what precedes, that I think a church edifice may, within the intent of the statute above referred to, be deemed “a building occupied exclusively as a church, although a pastor, or a janitor, or other necessary or customary officer, resides therein. The determination under review must therefore be annulled; but I deem it best to remit the matter to the board of excise for its further consideration and action, as was dpne by this court in People v. Dalton, 9 Misc. Rep. 249; 60 St. Rep. 648.

The relator may have $50 costs and his disbursements.  