
    The People ex rel. Henry Silkens v. John McGlyn et al., composing the Board of Excise of New Utrecht.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed December 14, 1891.)
    
    1. Excise—Revocation oe license.
    A board of excise cannot revoke a license without satisfactory proof of a violation of its conditions, and after an opportunity has been afforded the accused to be heard and to produce witnesses. The mere assurance of guilt by men of good character is not sufficient for that purpose where the guilt is denied by the accused party.
    2. Same.
    An order of the board revoking a license is subject to review.
    Certiorari to review the action of defendants in revoking relator’s license.
    
      John H. Kemble, for relator; James C. Church, for def’ts.
   Barnard, P. J.

The revocation of the license was without legal justification. The.license is granted on conditions. It may be revoked for a violation of these conditions, or a violation of •any of them. Complaint was made against the relator to the board of excise averring that the relator kept his saloon open at irregular hours, and that the house was disorderly. The hearing was set down for July 13,1891. The relator appeared and denied the charges. The board vacated the license without proof other than that inferred from the character and standing of the complainants. The excise act, chap. 549, Laws of 1873, § 4, intended to give the accused a hearing and power to obtain witnesses. The board of excise must be satisfied of the relator’s violation of the terms of his license. This does not mean that an assurance of guilt by men of good character should be sufficient when the guilt is denied by the accused party. The decision is subject to review. People ex rel, etc., v. Forbes, 52 Hun, 30; 22 St. Rep., 278.

The order of the board of excise should therefore be reversed, with costs.

Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.  