#### PETITION OF W. C. McNULTY.

FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS OF FRANKLIN COUNTY.

Presented May 18, 1891

Refused May 21, 1891.

When, from the petition for an alternative mandamus, it appeared *that*the Court of Quarter Sessions of Franklin county had heard the petitioner’s application for a distiller’s license to sell liquors at wholesale under the act of May 24, 1887, P. L. 194,* and upon due consideration denied it, although no objection was made or remonstrance filed, the writ was refused.

Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Clark and McCollum, JJ.

No. 000 July Term 1891, Sup. Ct.

On May 18, 1891, William C. McNulty presented his petition to the Supreme Court, representing that he was a citizen of Franklin county; that on January 8, 1891, he filed his petition in the Court of Quarter Sessions of said county, for a license for one year from March 1, 1891, for the sale of spirituous liquors by wholesale as a distiller, in quantities not less than one gallon, at the place described in said petition, pursuant to the provisions of the act of May 24, 1887, P. L. 194; that on February 20,1891, he filed his bond for such license, a certified copy of his said petition and bond being attached; that said petition was duly advertised according to law, and no remonstrance or objection was filed or made in said court to the granting of said license.

The petitioner further represented that be was the lessee of a certain distillery situate near the borough of Chambersburg, known as distillery No. 37 of the 9th district of Pennsylvania; that he began to manufacture whiskey in said distillery *on*January 13, 1891, and made return of his said distillery to the mercantile appraiser of said county, to have the same regularly rated according to law, and that he had been engaged in the manufacture of whiskey at said distillery ever since said date; *476that his said petition came on to be heard before the Honorable John Stewart, president judge of the said court, pursuant to a rule of the said court, on February 28,1891, at which time the said petition was heard by the said court and was held under advisement until March 9,1891, when the said court refused to grant the petitioner a license as prayed for. Representing that the refusal of a license to him by the said court was wholly illegal and without warrant, and that the petitioner was advised and believed that the said court was without discretion in the matter of' the granting of said license, the same being demandable by the petitioner as a matter of right, the petitioner prayed that a writ of alternative mandamus might be awarded, directed to the Honorable John Stewart, president and sole judge of the said Court of Quarter Sessions, commanding him to grant a license to the said petitioner as prayed for, or to show cause, etc.

*Mr. O. O.*Bowers, for the petitioner.

Counsel cited: Section 3, compared with §§ 6, 7, act of March 81, 1856, P. L. 200; §§ 81, 32, act of April 10,1849, P. L. 576; act of April 20, 1858, P. L. 366; act of March 22, 1867, P. L. 40; act of May 24,1887, P. L. 194; Britton v. Commonwealth, 105 Pa. 311.

*

 See act of June 9, 1891, P. L. 257.

Per Curiam :

Writ of alternative mandamus refused.