Continuing to mix my business with pleasure, I pass along this fine prose from Ballarin, Inc. v. Licensing Board of Boston, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 506 (2000):
For some diners, consuming an appetizer of duck liver pâté, rolled in pistachio, lingonberry coulis, served with garlic pita points, followed by an entrée of venison au poivre, finished with a dessert of chestnut mousse gateau, apricot glacé, is still more rapturous if preceded by a dry martini or ended with a cognac. To satisfy that want, Ballarin, Inc., which operates The Hungry I restaurant at 71 1/2 Charles Street at the foot of Beacon Hill in Boston, applied in 1995 to the licensing board for the city of Boston for a seven-day all-alcoholic beverages license….
…At what was to be a first hearing on Hungry I’s application before the licensing board, proponents and opponents of the award of an all-alcoholic beverages license made known their views, by speech and writing. Among Hungry I’s adherents were some abutters and many patrons, one of whom touted the salubrious tendency of a Bloody Mary to increase levels of good cholesterol. Those opposed mustered all the political artillery–the Beacon Hill Civic Association and elected public officials. The principal argument advanced against granting the application was “opening of the floodgates”; i.e., were Hungry I to receive an all-alcoholic beverages license, how could the licensing board say no to others? The neighborhood would go down the drain….
Foreigners to Massachusetts might get the impression that rhetorical flourish is a sine qua non of our judicial appointees. Would that it were the case.
Comments are closed.