delivered the opinion of the court.
People ex rel. Angelica v. Harrison, 189 Ill. App. 424 (1914)
Nov. 10, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 19,915
189 Ill. App. 424
The People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Natale D. Angelica, Appellee, v. Carter H. Harrison et al., Appellants.
Gen. No. 19,915.
(Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles M. Foell, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1913.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Opinion filed November 10, 1914.
Rehearing denied November 24, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Petition by the People of the State of Illinois ex rel. Natale D. Angelica for a writ of mandamus, directed to Carter H. Harrison, as mayor of the city of Chicago, Francis D. Connery, as city clerk, and Edward Cohen, as city collector, and to the city of Chicago, a municipal corporation, directing and commanding them to issue to petitioner a license to conduct a dramshop upon the premises known as No. 113 East 25th street, in said city, for a period of six months beginning May 1, 1913. The defendants filed an answer and a hearing was had, and on April 30, 1913, the court adjudged that the writ issue forthwith as prayed. From the judg*425ment, the defendants prayed and perfected this appeal.
Abstract of the Decision.
Intoxicating liquors, § 30 * —when issuance of license cannot he compelled hy mandamus. Action of the mayor of a city in refusing to issue a dramshop license on the ground that the proposed location of the dramshop was in a residential neighborhood, held not such an abuse of discretion on the part of the mayor as to warrant the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel him to issue the same, it appearing that the buildings in the immediate neighborhood were chiefly used for residential purposes and that the mayor in refusing the license was actuated by the conviction that the best interest of the people in the particular neighborhood demanded that the license be denied.
It was admitted that certain ordinances set forth in the petition were and had been for some years past-in full force. and effect in said city, and were all of the ordinances which applied to and governed the issuance of dramshop licenses. Said ordinances provided, inter alia, that “the mayor shall grant a license for the keeping of a saloon or dramshop within the city to any person who shall apply to him in writing therefor, and who shall furnish satisfactory evidence of good character.”
William H. Sexton, for appellants; Joseph F. Grossman, and John E. Foster, of counsel.
L. H. Craig, for appellee; Gustav H. Wischman, of counsel.