Young v. State Board of Equalization

California Court of Appeal Feb 18, 1949 No. Civ. 3708Published

Before: Mussell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the licensees established a statutory defense under section 61.2(b) of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act because their employee acted in good faith and with reasonable diligence in verifying the minor's identity via a registration certificate. Consequently, the Board of Equalization's disciplinary order was not supported by substantial evidence.

Issues

Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the Board of Equalization's finding that the licensees violated section 61(a) of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.
Whether the licensees established a defense under section 61.2(b) of the Act by demanding and being shown a registration certificate.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As we read the section (61.2(b)) of the act, a defense was established when the clerk Seahorn demanded identification of Taylor and was shown the registration certificate.”

“Under such circumstances we cannot disturb the trial court’s findings and judgment that the decision and order of the State Board of Equalization is not supported by any substantial evidence.”

MUSSELL, J.

J.—This

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County issuing a peremptory writ of mandate ordering the State Board of Equalization to set aside its disciplinary order whereby the liquor licenses held by petitioners were to have been suspended for a period of 30 days.

Petitioners are the owners and operators of a restaurant and café in Porterville and are holders of on-sale and off-sale liquor licenses. On October 14, 1946, an accusation was filed

[257]

with the Board of Equalization charging petitioners with violation of section 61(a) of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act (Stats. 1935, p. 1123, as amended; 2 Deering’s Gen. Laws, Act 3796) in that one M. N. Seahorn, an employee, sold whisky to one Joe Taylor, a minor.

The admitted facts are that at about 11:30 p. m., on July 27, 1946, Joe Taylor, 17 years of age, entered petitioners’ café and purchased one-half pint of whiskey from M. N. Seahorn, the clerk in charge. Seahorn asked Taylor to show his identification as to his age and Taylor exhibited a registration card issued in the name of Glenn Tucker. The testimony was that the clerk looked the card over on both sides and requested Taylor to sign a piece of paper. The card was on the counter and Taylor copied the signature of Glenn Tucker. The clerk then compared the signatures, thought it was a fair resemblance and made the sale.

Taylor testified that he had erased the

in the figures

1946

and had put in a

in the place of the

so that the card, when presented, would appear to have been issued on February 23, 1942 instead of 1946, thus indicating the holder was over 21 years of age; that he was a friend of Glenn Tucker and had found the registration card two or three weeks before presenting it to Seahorn. A clerk in the office of the Selective Service Board testified that their file showed that a duplicate card was prepared for Tucker in March, 1946, supposedly because the original had been lost. Mrs. Tucker testified that her son Glenn was then in El Centro and that she had learned that he had lost his selective service card and had secured a duplicate.

Young v. State Board of Equalization

AI Brief

MUSSELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief