Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN iionorableZert Pord';Administrator Texas Liquor Control Board Austin, Texas 0-l-J opinion No. o- .7073 Re: May a door or a liquo be moved from its aoo place in order to be than'thrse bun a churoh? And Mon. Dear Sir: Your request fbr and carefully considered by your letter as r0u0w8: las pertain to If the nor- buildin& is within the mner or said sets -ihedoor baok, mak- ranos projeoted rar enough that is within three hundred feet or the package store or beer parlor, E the permit be cancelled? I should like for you to secure 362 ,HonorabIeBert Ford - Page 2 a ruling from the Attorney Oeneralls Oliice on this provision, siticethere is a dirreranoe of opinion here between the ,oityinspector and the enioroement orficsrs.~ WYiillyou please give ~16an opinioa oh the above desoribed situations. *I suggest that the underlined word 'will' be changed to 'should' in sc Sar as your opinion 18 con- cerned." Article MM-25a, Vernon's Annotated Penal Code or Texas, reads as Sollowst "The Comissionerst Court oS any county in the territory thereof outside incor~mtad cities and towns and the @verning authorities oS any city or town within the corporate liaits OS say suoh city or town may prohibit the sale OS alooholio beverages by any dealer where the plaoe OS business OS any such dealer is within three hundred (300) Sect OS shy ahuroh, public school or public hospital, the measurements to be along the property lines OS the street Sronts and from front door to front door and in direct line across intersectionswhera they oocur.w We quote f+rom the ease of Stubbe Y. Texas Liquor Con- trol Board, 106 3. w. 2nd 178, as r0u0ws: r "The maning generally given by the courts to the phrase 'Srom Sront door to front door' is that, any door leading into thr,church or saloon ia a Sront door; in other words, it is held that a oburoh or saloon may have several rront doors and may raoe upon two or more streets) . , . , In 15 R, C. L., pp. 372-373, the doctrine is stated that . . . . 137. In applying the prohibitionsagainst sales hear churches, great llber- ellty 1s exercised,and the rule oS constructionusually adopted is said to favor the religious institution, and not the traffiokers in liquor . . .* The Courts or this State have not passed on a Snot situation as set forth in your letter; however, the Supren;e 363 Honorable Bert Ford - Pac7.e 3 Court OS New York in,IlcOl,In re Chsney (72 N. Y, S, 134), under 4 similar Saot situation, stated as SolLowst "The entrance from and to which distance is to be computed ror the purpose OS determiningwhat build- ings, if any, are within a radius OS 200 feet, Is the entrance or opening in the building oooupieA as a saloon. Such entrance or openfng in this case is ocntrolling, rather than the location oS the door set baok Prom the wall in the entranceway." In reply to your rirst question, It is our opinion that when 4 city has enacted a valiA ordinance prohibiting the sale or alcoholic beverageswithin three hundred (300) feet OS any church, publio sohoolor publio hospital, that if the front doors OS a proposed liquor store and a church are less than three hundred (300) feet apart aooording to the system of measurement set Sorth in Article 666-25a oS Vernon's Annotated Penal Code as oonstrued in jtubbs v, Texas Liquor Control Board, supra, the wner or lessee of such building oannot defeat the very. purpose of the ordinance by setting the swung Aoor back, in the xanner described In your request, so that it will be more than three hundred (300) feet Srom the front door OS the ohurch. It would not be proper to issue a permit or license under such circu~~stanoes, hs we have s.nswereAyour first question in the negative, we do not believe it is necessary to answer your second question. Trusting that the foregoing Sully answers your inquiry, we ranain, Very truly yours