For the prosecutor Board of Commissioners of the City of Hoboken, John J. Fallon.
For the individual prosecutors, Joseph B. McFeely, Anthony P. LaPorta, N. Louis Paladeau, Jr., John F. Lynch, Jr., and Benedict A. Baronio (Abraham J. Slurzberg, of counsel).
For the respondent-appellant, Samuel Moskowitz (Nicholas S. Schloeder and Samuel J. Davidson, of counsel).
For the respondent Alfred E. Driscoll, State Commissioner of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Walter D. Van Riper, Attorney-General (Samuel B. Helfand, Deputy Attorney-General, of counsel).
Before Justices Parker, Donges and Oliphant.
By these writs the individual prosecutors seek to set aside orders of the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Commissioner reversing orders of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Hoboken granting licenses to the prosecutors to conduct "package liquor stores." There are also involved motions to vacate orders of this court allowing the Commissioner of Alcoholic Beverage Control to intervene in the causes as a respondent, to suppress the brief filed in his behalf and to consolidate briefs. These motions we do not deem necessary to determine in reaching our conclusions on the main issue involved.
The Board of Commissioners of the City of Hoboken, after application made and hearings held, issued licenses to the individual prosecutors to conduct "package liquor stores."
The issuance of these licenses was opposed by the respondent association and it appealed from the action of the Board of Commissioners to the State Commissioner of Alcoholic Beverage Control on the ground that it had abused its discretion in the following particulars: there were ample liquor outlets in the immediate vicinity and in the City of Hoboken and the granting of the licenses was socially undesirable.
All appeals were consolidated and the matter heard de novo by the Commissioner. The only party to introduce evidence was the respondent association.
On March 1st, 1946, the State Commissioner of Alcoholic Beverage Control rendered his decision in which he determined that because in the City of Hoboken there was no ordinance limiting the number of licenses on a population basis, that because the "common interest of the general public" of the city was amply served, that the number of licenses in the city had reached a "saturation point," and public necessity and convenience was disregarded, the Board of Commissioners had abused its discretion. The action of the Board was reversed and it was ordered to cancel and declare null and void the licenses.
The authority of the State Commissioner of Alcoholic Beverage Control to act in the premises is derived from R.S. 33:1-22 and among the appeals he may hear are "If the other issuing authority shall issue a license, any taxpayer or other aggrieved person opposing the issuance of such license may within thirty days after the issuance of such license appeal to the Commissioner from the action of the issuing authority." Was the Hudson Bergen County Retail Liquor Stores Association a proper party to appeal under the statute? We do not think so. This association is one organized not for pecuniary profit, with its principal office in the City of Union City. Among the objects for which it was formed were that of helping to regulate the liquor business, keeping it on a high plane and in effect endeavoring to maintain monopolies for its members. None of its ...