
    People ex rel. Silkens v. McGlyn et al.
    
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    December 14, 1891.)
    1. Intoxicating Liquors—Revocation of License—Right to Hearing.
    The board of excise have no power to revoke the license of a saloon-keeper, on complaint of his keeping a disorderly house, without affording him a hearing and an opportunity to obtain witnesses for his defense, under Laws 1870, c. 175, as amended by Laws 1873, o'. 549, § 4, which provides that, upon an inquiry after such. complaint, “the said board, or the party complained of, may summon, and the said board may compel the attendance of, witnesses before them. ”
    2. Same—Decision oe Board—Review.
    The decision of the board of excise revoking the license of a saloon-keeper is subject to review.
    
      Certiorari on the relation of Henry Silkens against John McGlyn and others, composing the board of excise of the town of New Utrecht, to review their action in revoking relator’s license as a saloon-keeper. Laws 2L Y. 1870, c. 175, as amended by Laws 1873, c. 549, § 4, provides that “the board of excise of any city, town, or village may at any time, and upon the complaint of any resident of said city, town, or village, shall, summon before them any person or persons licensed as aforesaid; and if they shall become satisfied that any such person or persons has or have violated any of the provisions of this act, or one of the acts hereby amended, they shall revoke, cancel, and annul the license of such person or persons. * * * Upon an inquiry, the said board, or the party complained of, may summon, and the said board" may compel the attendance of, witnesses before them.”
    Order of revocation reversed.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
    
      John K. Kemble and Wilson Brown, Jr., for relator. James C. Church, for defendants.
   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 in-, ferred from the character and standing of the complainants. The excise act (chapter 549, Laws 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 v. Forbes, (Sup.) 4 N. Y. Supp. 757. The order of the board of excise should therefore be reversed, with costs. All concur.  