.1092 State, Lanasa v. (Md.). State v. Benjamin (R. I.). State v. Boston & M. R. R. (Vt.). State v. Burt (N. H.). State v. Central Vermont R. Co. (Vt.)... Page 65 Tash, Hyman v. (N. J. Ch.). State v. Central Vermont R. Co. (Vt.).... 194 Tewksbury, Ott v. (N. J. Ch.). State v. Central Vermont R. Co. (Vt.)... State v. Herron (N. J.).. State v. Intoxicating Liquors (Me.). State v. Jellison (Me.). State v. J. P. Bass Pub. Co. (Me.). 197 Theobald v. Shepard Bros. (N. H.) 894 Tintern Manor Water Co., Long Branch .1058 Tipton Water Co., Bland v. (Pa.). Page 742 913 .... 647 124 786 302 26 .1100 370 296 65 183 33 .1134 101 State v. Lawrence (R. I.) State v. Mellillo (N. J.) 305 Toothaker, Lawrence v. (N. H.).. 534 939 State, Meushaw v. (Md.) State v. Moore (Md.). 461 457 Town Council of Town of Narragansett, Greenough v. (R. I.). 594 State v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. (Conn.) 942 Town Council of Warwick, Rhode Island 644 State v. Nugent (N. J. Sup.). 481 Town of Union in Hudson County v. Hud State v. Nugent (N. J. Sup.). 484 son County Board of Taxation (N. J. State v. Nugent (N. J. Sup.). 485 Sup.) 46 State, Reiter v. (Md.). 975 Townsend v. Lacock (Pa.). 187 State, Robinson v. (Md.). State v. Rosenkrans (R. I.).. 433 Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Watkins (N. J. Sup.) 325 513 Travers, Parker v. (N. J.).... 612 State v. Rutland R. Co. (Vt.). 197 Trenton St. R. Co. v. Lawlor (N. J.). 234 817 Trinity Realty Co., Perkins v. (N. J.)...1135 741 440 State Board of Assessors, Morris Canal & 328 State Mut. Building & Loan Ass'n of New State Mut. Building & Loan Ass'n of New Jersey v. Batterson (N. J. Sup.)..... 115 Union Pac. Tea Co., E. D. Keyes & Co. v. (Vt.) 201 Stavolo, Appeal of (Conn.). 549 Stearns v. Boston & M. R. R. (N. H.). 21 Steelman v. Hurley (N. J.)... 913 United Electric Co. v. Newark (N. J. Sup.) 237 291 Steelman, Somers v. (N. J. Sup.). 119 Steer v. Dow (N. H.). 217 United New Jersey R. & Canal Co. v. Newark (N. J.). 275 Steiner, McGrew v. (N. J. Sup.). .1122 Steinman v. Baltimore Antiseptic Steam Laundry Co. (Md.). 517 Stephany v. Marsden (N. J. Ch.). 598 United Railways & Electric Co. of Baltimore v. Corbin (Md.).. 131 Sternberg, Sherwin v. (N. J. Sup.). 117 United Railways & Electric Co. v. Riley Sterrat, Shields v. (N. J. Sup.). 970 Stetson v. Baltimore & N. Y. R. Co. (N. J. Sup.) 113 United States v. United States Fidelity & .1106 Stevenson, Mathis v. (N. J. Ch.). 267 Stevens & Co. v. Stiles (R. I.).. 802 United States v. United States Fidelity & ..1109 Stewart v. Jones (N. J. Sup.). 151 Stiles, Stevens & Co. v. (R. I.).. 802 United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., .1106 Stinson v. Ellicott City & Clarksville Co. (Md.): United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 527 United States v. (Vt.)... .1109 Stokes, Benton v. (Md.). 532 United States Independent Tel. Co., O' Stolarz v. Algonquin Co. (N. J. Sup.).. 57 Grady v. (N. J.). .1040 Stone, Howell v. (N. J.). 914 Urich v. Watts (N. J.).. .1135 Strout Co. v. Hubbard (Me.). 1020 Strout v. Lewis (Me.). Sturm v. Huck (N. J. Sup.). 44 Vanaman v. Fliehr (N. J. Ch.). 692 Sullivan v. Bridgeport (Conn.). 906 Sullivan v. Martin (Conn.). 783 Sullivan County R. R., Keefe v. (N. H.).. 379 513 Superior Court, Hart v. (R. I.). .1057 Vester v. Rhode Island Co., two cases (R. 4 Supreme Circle Brotherhood of the Union, .1130 Victoria Acetylene Co. v. Cushing (Me.)...1015 3 Supreme Commandery United Order of Golden Cross of the World, Patterson v. (Me.) .1016 Supreme Conclave, Improved Order of Heptasophs, Sautter v. (N. J.). Wagner, Fisher v. (Md.). 999 Swartz v. Gottlieb-Bauern-Schmidt-Straus ... Page 404 Williams v. Smith (R. I.)..... Wassmer, Krah v. (N. J. Ch.). ...... Page 841 427 450 962 Willoughby v. Erie R. Co. (N. J. Sup.).. 41 540 ... .1135 309 Wilson v. New York Ceut. & H. R. R. Co. 183 50 Webber Hospital Ass'n v. McKenzie (Me.)..1032 Wolcho v. Arthur J. Rosenbluth & Co. (Conn.) 566 466 Webster v. P. W. Moore & Son (Md.). Weeks v. Hackett (Me.). Wells v. Boston & M. R. R. (Vt.). .... · Westchester Fire Ins. Co., Dunton v. (Me.).. 1037 248 West Jersey & S. R. Co., Carter v. (N. J.) 253 W. P. Chamberlain Co. v. Tuttle (N. H.)., 865 York Haven Electric Power Plant Co., Con- Woodbridge Ice Co. v. Semon Ice Cream 577 Woodruff v. Gunton (Pa.). 851 408 243 388 .1018 .1113 oy Tp. Sup'rs v. (Pa.).. 207 Westmoreland County R. Co., Davis v. (Pa.) Young v. Chandler (Me.). 652 538 Young, McGill v. (N. H.). 637 Wetherell, First Baptist Soc. v. (R. I.).. 66 908 Young v. Randall (Me.).. 647 .1100 White v. Western Allegheny R. Co. (Pa.)..1081 .1111 Zdancewicz v. Burlington County Traction 255 Co. (N. J. Sup.).. 123 Whyte, Schlicher v. (N. J.). 337 Zelenski, Syring v. (N. J. Sup.). .1119 Williams v. Potter (R. I.). Williams v. Shaw (R. I.).. William Martien & Co. v. Baltimore (Md.) 966 Zimmerman v. Garvey (Conn.). 3 Zimmerman v. Hudson & M. R. Co. (N. J. 207 Sup.) t THE ATLANTIC REPORTER. VOLUME 71. RUHLAND v. WATERMAN, Town Clerk, et al. (Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Oct. 23, 1908. On Rehearing, Oct. 29, 1908.) 1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 25*)-LOCAL_OPTION- - ELECTIONS - VOID STATUTORY PROVISIONS. Gen. Laws 1896, c. 102, § 4, providing for submission at general elections in cities and towns of the question whether liquor licenses shall be granted, is void so far as it provides that no vote shall be taken on the question unless a number of electors equal in cities to 10 per cent. and in towns to 15 per cent. of the vote cast for general officers at the preceding election shall petition the clerk therefor; that upon such petition the clerk shall insert a proposition providing for taking such vote in the warrant calling for the town, ward, and district meetings; and that he shall file with the Secretary of State a certificate that the question is to be submitted, in that the provision is incapable of reasonable construction, and does not show any rule applicable to the whole state, either as to the basis of computation of the number of names required for a valid petition or as to how the clerk shall determine either the number required or the qualifications of the signers to such petitions. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Dec. Dig. § 25.*] 2. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 25*)-LOCAL OPTION-STATUTE CONSTRued. Gen. Laws 1896, c. 102, § 4, provides for submission at general elections in cities and towns of the question whether liquor licenses shall be granted; that, if a majority votes against licenses, none shall be granted for a year nor until a subsequent vote to grant them, etc. Held, that the section requires submission of the question at general elections, with general provisions as to the effect of a majority vote, and that it forms a complete statute, on elimination of the void provision respecting petitions for submission of the question; the question being properly placed upon the ballots as provided by the election law (Gen. Laws 1896, c. 11, § 22), as amended by Pub. Laws, 1904-05, p. 167, c. 1229. § 2, passed April 26, 1905. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Dec. Dig. § 25.*] On Rehearing. 3. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 25*)-LOCAL OP TION-ELECTIONS-NOTICE. The void provision of Gen. Laws 1896, c. 102. § 4, requiring city and town clerks, upon petition of electors, to insert a proposition for taking a vote on the question whether liquor licenses shall be granted in the warrant calling the town, ward, or district meetings, is not in severable from the remainder of the section, which requires the petition to be submitted at each general election, etc., on the theory that no provision remains for notifying the electors of the vote to be taken, since notice must be given under Gen. Laws 1896, c. 37, § 8, requiring notice to the electors of a town meeting prescribed by law to be given by the town clerk, etc., and since under chapter 26, § 8, the term "town clerk" includes city clerk, and since, regardless of a statute directing notice, the Legislature having directed a vote on the question at each general election, town and city clerks must give notice in their warrants. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Dec. Dig. § 25.*] Petition by Lewis Ruhland for certiorari to review action of Daniel D. Waterman in making a certificate to the Secretary of State. Writ granted. Motion for reargument denied. Argued before DUBOIS, BLODGETT, JOHNSON, and PARKHURST, JJ. Edward D. Bassett, John W. Hogan, Arthur P. Sumner, and Philip S. Knauer, for petitioner. William B. Greenough, Atty. Gen., for Secretary of State. Benjamin W. Grim, for respondent Waterman. PER CURIAM. The petitioner, a licensed wholesale liquor dealer in the town of Cranston, prefers this petition for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the respondent Waterman, as town clerk of that town, in certifying, under section 4 of chapter 102 of the General Laws of 1896, to the other respondent Bennett, Secretary of State, that a sufficient number of qualified electors have petitioned for the insertion upon the ballot for the election to be held on November 3d next the following question: "Will this town grant licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors"-the petitioner averring, also, that he "has a large property which would greatly deteriorate in value should an election result in prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors." The section in question reads as follows: "The electors of the several cities and towns who are qualified to vote in the election of all general officers, shall, at each election of general officers, cast their ballots for or against the granting of licenses for the sale of intox For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reporter Indexes icating liquors pursuant to this chapter: Provided, that no vote shall be taken on this question in any city or town unless a number of the qualified electors equal in cities to ten per centum, and in towns to fifteen per centum, of the vote cast for general officers at the election next preceding, shall petition the city or town clerk therefor at least twenty days prior to said election; and the city or town clerk shall upon such petition insert a proposition providing for taking such vote in the warrant calling the town, ward or district meetings, and shall at least fifteen days previous to the day of said election file with the secretary of state a certificate that the question, 'Will this town (or, city) grant licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors,' is to be submitted to the vote of the people in such town or city. If a majority of the ballots so cast at any such election be against the granting of such licenses, no license under the provisions of this chapter shall be granted in such city or town during the twelve calendar months next after such election, nor until such city or town shall vote at some subsequent election of general officers to grant such licenses; but if the majority of the ballots cast at any such election shall be for the granting of such licenses, then licenses under the provisions of this chapter shall be granted in such city or town during the twelve calendar months after such election and until such city or town shall vote at some subsequent election of general officers not to grant licenses." The court is of the opinion that so much of the statute above quoted contained in section 4, c. 102, Gen. Laws 1896, as follows: "Provided, that no vote shall be taken on this question in any city or town unless a number of the qualified electors equal in cities to ten per centum, and in towns to fifteen per centum, of the vote cast for general officers at the election next preceding, shall petition the city or town clerk therefor at least twenty days prior to said election; and the city or town clerk shall upon such petition insert a proposition providing for taking such vote in the warrant calling the town, ward or district meetings, and shall at least fifteen days previous to the day of said election file with the secretary of state a certificate that the question, 'Will this town (or, city) grant licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors?' is to be submitted to the vote of the people in such town or city"-is incapable of any reasonable construction, and contains no language from which this court can deduce any rule applicable to the whole state, either as to the basis of computation of the number of names required to make a valid petition or as to the method by which the clerk of any town or city shall determine either the number required or the qualifications of the persons whose names are signed to such petitions. We therefore hold that such proviso is As to the remainder of section 4, c. 102, Gen. Laws 1896, above quoted, which is as follows: "Sec. 4. The electors of the several cities and towns who are qualified to vote in the election of all general officers, shall, at each election of general officers, cast their ballots for or against the granting of licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors pursuant to this chapter. * If a majority of the ballots so cast at any such election be against the granting of such licenses, no license under the provisions of this chapter shall be granted in such city or town during the twelve calendar months next after such election, nor until such city or town shall vote at some subsequent election of general officers to grant such licenses; but if the majority of the ballots cast at any such election shall be for the granting of such licenses, then licenses under the provisions of this chapter shall be granted in such city or town during the twelve calendar months next after such election and until such city or town shall vote at some subsequent election of general officers not to grant licenses"-we hold that the general purpose of the section is to require the electors of the several cities and towns to cast their ballots for or against the granting of licenses, etc., at each election of general officers, with general provisions as to the effect of the majority of the ballots cast on the future granting of licenses, that such remainder of section 4 forms in itself a clear, complete, and intelligible statute, entirely similar in its effect as to the whole state to chapter 87, §§ 3, 4, 5, Pub. St. 1882, as applied to Providence and Pawtucket for several years. The question, "Will this town (or, city) grant licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors?" should be placed upon the ballots to be used in the several cities and towns of the state at the ensuing election of general officers in accordance with the provisions of section 22 of chapter 11 of the General Laws of 1896, as amended by section 2 of chapter 1229 of the Public Laws of 190405, passed April 26, 1905. The proviso of the statute under which the respondent Waterman, town clerk of the town of Cranston, has given his certificate to the respondent Bennett, Secretary of State, in this case, having been herein declared to be void, we hold that it conferred no jurisdiction upon the town clerk to make such certificate. The writ of certiorari prayed for by the petitioner will therefore be granted. On Rehearing. The only new suggestion in the petitioner's motion for reargument is contained in the third ground, as follows: "Chapter 9, § 12, Gen. Laws 1896, prescribes notice of meetings by warrant of town and city clerks. The proviso in section 4, c. 102, Gen. Laws 1896, requires the city and town clerks to insert the proposition in their warrants for elec |