Historical February 1980 report or notice. Original dates, prices and contacts describe the source period; current availability has not been established.
Keeping the procedure under a tight rein, Excise Commissioner, Arthur E. McLeod heard testimony in room 208 of the City Hall on January 11, 1980 to determine the validity of a petition to obtain a liquor license submitted by the 354 Skinker Corporation. The Corporation is seeking the license to use in a proposed restaurant at 354 N. Skinker (located on the southeast corner of Skinker and McPherson).
As the hearing began, Lou Hamilton was designated as spokesperson for the corporation with Dan Hayes acting as its attorney; Ed Stout was named spokesperson for those opposing the license.
Sheldon Hartsfield, agent with the liquor control office, was called to testify as to his investigation of the petition. He reviewed the process he uses to verify if those signing the petitions were qualified property owners and tenants. Hartsfield said he had petitions both in favor of and opposed to the granting of a liquor license.
The agent stated that the corporation had obtained the minimum number (50% plus one) of signatures of property owners necessary for the granting of the license and that the corporation had two more tenant signatures than the minimum. He concluded that the corporation had a majority of owners and tenants in favor of the license.
At this point, Mr. Stout asked the commissioner to delay the hearing until a later date because the lawyer representing the protestors was unable to be present. The commissioner said he had talked earlier with the absent lawyer and had informed him that the hearing would definitely take place on January 11th. Because such hearings are conducted in accordance with the general rules of the circuit court, the commissioner made it clear that all parties would be best served if represented by counsel. He called for a short recess during which John Shewmaker, who was at the hearing, was retained to represent the protestors.
Familiar with the case, but without time to thoroughly prepare,
Mr. Shewmaker cross examined agent Hartsfield about the persons who signed for each parcel of land within the two hundred foot radius of the proposed restaurant.
He raised questions about the signatures representing two different parcels.
One is the uninhabited semi-circular property inside the main Parkview gates. The President of the Parkview Agents signed the petition in favor of the license as the representative of this property.
Mr. Shewmaker asked the agent if he had received a letter from the body of Parkview agents authorizing the President to sign.
The agent answered that he had not.
Mr. Shewmaker then stated that. under rule 2.4 of the protest procedures, jointly owned property should not be counted. This led to more questions concerning the ownership of this parcel and who can legally sign a petition as owner.
The original Parkview trust indenture and subsequent documents creating the Parkview Agents were submitted as evidence.
Testimony was also introduced indicating that the land was used as a park and that parks are not to be counted in the totals. The commissioner said that he would personally view the parcel, read the legal documents pertaining to the power of the Parkview Agents and their President, review the law of ownership of property, and rule on this question at a later date.
The other signatures questioned were of the owners of a home within the legal radius. Agent Hartsfield said that during his final check the couple told him that they favored the issuing of the license.
Mr. Shewmaker showed that the couple had changed their minds between support and opposition petitions and he claimed that there is precedent for discarding the signatures of persons who have vacillated.
Mr. Shewmaker also stated that there are clear procedures regarding how names are to be added or deleted from such a petition and indicated that these rules had not been followed.
In his closing statement
Mr. Shewmaker reiterated the questions he had raised. Mr. Hayes, in his final remarks, stated that documents submitted concerning the powers of the Parkview Agents would show the President of the agents was clearly within his rights to sign the petition. In addition, he stated that the parcel in question was clearly a legal piece of property and not a easement and that it should be represented by the agent’s President. Moreover, Mr. Hayes said that the alleged indecision of the couple was obviated by Agent Hartsfield’s testimony that they wished to sign in favor of the license.
Mr. Shewmaker was given seven days to file a brief. Mr. Hayes has an additional seven days to reply and then Commissioner McLeod will make his decision. Either party may appeal the decision to the Circuit Court of the State of Missouri.
Originally published in The Paper, February 1980.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times1980_02.pdf, printed page(s) 1, 6; PDF page(s) 1, 6.
