Bowman v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board

SHINN, P. J.

Martin N. Sousa made application to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control for an on-sale liquor license for his inn which is located in the unincorporated community of Idyll wild in the San Jacinto Mountains in Riverside County. Protests were filed by the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County and by seven residents of the community. An extensive hearing was had before a hearing officer who made findings and a recommendation against issuance of the license. These were adopted by the department and the application was denied. The ultimate finding upon

[469]

which the denial was predicated was that issuance of the license would be contrary to public welfare and morals. Sousa appealed to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board which upon review of the record ruled that the decision of the department was without substantial support in the evidence, and upon that ground reversed the order of the department denying the application. Thereupon, the department, without further evidence and upon the facts previously found, exclusive of the ultimate fact, vacated its previous order and entered a new one granting the application. Seven of the protestants sought mandate of the superior court to the Appeals Board requiring the board to set aside its order and to affirm the original order of the department. After a trial the court rendered its decision that the Appeals Board had properly exercised its powers and mandate was denied. The same protestants have appealed.

The respective powers of the department and the Appeals Board were defined by the Supreme Court in the recent case of

Martin

v.

Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board, 52

Cal.2d 238 [340 P.2d 1].

In the court trial the review was directed to the decision of the board that issuance of the license would not be contrary to public welfare and morals. Due to the limitations of the ■powers of the board the sole question for its decision was whether there was substantial evidence before the department to justify its finding that issuance of the license would be contrary to public welfare and morals. Although the board’s decision of that legal question furnished the basis of its order of reversal there is nevertheless in the decision an implied finding of fact that issuance of the license would not be contrary to public welfare and morals. The effect of the judgment of the trial court is to sustain the determination of the board that the evidence before the department was legally insufficient to sustain the department’s finding of the ultimate fact which furnished the basis for the order of denial. We have concluded that the findings of the department were well supported by the evidence and that it was the manifest duty of the board to affirm the order of the department.