It's not a hard and fast rule. Ellie Kidd was the first to suggest the idea to me, back when she was archiving the county documents for the last clerk. Sometimes the demands of the public and location were the first consideration. Near a ferry or courthouse, or along a road frequently traveled seems to be the reason for many of them, just judging by the wording in the applications. Appears it was illegal to turn travelers away or charge them anything unless you had a license. And prices defined by law if you did.

I've seen at least one application was appealed, and looks like the Overseers of the Poor stepped in to verify the need, had to sign off before it was granted.

Miller's first application was signed by officers of the court...so only a few names but carried a lot of weight. I expect what allowed him to be a candidate the first year. Later, his renewals were signed by most of his neighbors and/or customers. Apparently to keep the license, you had to have the local's approval. Keeping a disorderly houses, (too many drunks disturbing the peace or selling liquor to Indians), was punishable by fines, or you could lose your license completely.

My guess is Miller was physically disabled in some manner, at least enough he wouldn't qualify for the job of constable any longer.

Boyer's book on Old Inns and Taverns in West Jersey, shows some of these guys moved location quite often.You can pick up advertising for innkeepers in some of the old newspapers too.

On p. 208, talking about Seven Stars Tavern, Boyer writes that Abraham Nelson was granted license "upon the Kings road in the upper part of Pilesgrove in Feb 1741". In a petition of Nelson's for 1750/1 the petitioners write that 'they see a great necessity of a Publick house being kept in the Neighbourhood by Reason of the Travellers Suffering and are also obliged to Impose upon Private Houses or Suffer greatly".

I haven't gotten copies of the originals for Nelson yet, and Boyer wasn't specific in his wording, Originally I had the sense Nelson was there that whole decade. Maybe the author thought so too, even without evidence or coming right out and saying so.

For whatever reason, Alexander Miller is not mentioned at all in this book...so maybe Boyer thought Nelson was still in operation in the interim between his applications Or Miller's applications were misplaced down the court house when he was researching. But Miller's licenses prove otherwise, and fill the gap nicely. A Moravian map of the period confirms Miller at this location.

My guess is Nelson owned the house, but maybe it was a PITA keeping it, so then had Miller in there and Miller either moved away or died, hence Nelson applied again in his absence. The wording in his case makes it seem more like public demand. Other Innkeepers followed. Joseph Wood and John Sparks, formerly of Gloucester co, until eventually Nelson offered the "plantation on the great road" for sale in 1756. Another reason I don't think Miller actually owned the place.

If Miller was insolvent and needed this gig to keep going....could mean he died without an estate of any value, so might not be any probate on file. At least none published I don't know enough yet to tell, but I might be able to dig something out of the verticle files in the surrogate's records down the courthouse. Big maybe.

I can't answer specifically for you relative. Location alone might have dictated the need, and if he was ready and able and the neighbors agreed, or no one else was vying for the privilege, then might have been enough to allow him to continue in his father's old place.

I've seen where a widow MIGHT renew if the original guy died...but again, might depend on the neighborhood and based on the needs/convenience of the traveling public. I didn't transcribe the whole application in my original post, just the names on these, but if you look at enough of them over time...you'll see differences in the wording. I have seen examples where the applicant came right out and claimed hardship...but most don't specifically say so.