The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1881-05-20
OPINION or rnE COURT.


OPINION OF TnE COURT.
The persons who have spent time and
money in bringing TO the notice of the
Court, the loose practice of the keepers |
of restaurants in Catawissa are entitled to |
the thanks of the public; but their gen
cral objection to all licenses cannot be |
sustained under the law.
In Schlaudeckcr vs. Marshall ct. AL, |
~ State Reports (22 i. +. SMITH, POO, |
it was held by the supreme court, Judge |
Agncw delivering the opinion (p. 206), |
that "whether any or all licenses should |
be granted is Legislative, and not a ju-
dicial question; the act of deciding is ju
dicial, and not arbitrary or wilful."
To say that we will grant olicense to
any one, or that we will grant license to
every one, is not to decide iudcially on
the merits of the case, but to determine
beforehand and outside of the law.
Again Judge Agnew says, "Thc law
of the land has determined that licenses
shall exist, and has imposed upon the
court the duty of ascertaining the prop
er instances in which licenses should be
granted"
The three houses for which license is
asked have been occupied as licensed res
taurants for many years. The weight
of the sworn testimony is that they are
as much Tor more) necessary now as at
any time heretofore, and that they are as
necessary for the accommodation of the
public (strangers and travelers) as any
restaurants are in any place.
The petitions for and remonstrances
against these licenses are nearl y equal,
so that the only question is whether the
practices of these applicants heretofore
have been such as to forbid the renewal
of their licenses That each applicant
has in one or more respects violated the
law is clearly proven-though the viola
ton has probably not extended further
than is usual with most persons engaged
| in similar business. This is not said,
however, by way of excuse, but for the
purpose of bringing especially to the no.
ticc not only of these applicants but of
all others the stringent provisions of the
law, violation of which will (on proof
be ground for revoking n license. ANY
inn keeper or keeper of n licensed res
taurant for the sale of spirituous or other
liquors, who shall allow any kind of
game of address or hazard, or playing or
betting, or gaming for money or other
valuable thing (whcther with cards, dice,
billiards, bowls, shutile-boards, or any
game or device in any manner) to be
rracticed, played or carried on, on his
premises is liable to penalty besides
the revocation of his license aud for a
second offense he is ever after incapable
of having license rs a retailer within
this ,ommonweal,h.-Act March II,
1884.
Wilfully furnishing minors, insane
persons, persons intoxicated at the time
or persons of known incorporate habits,
with Intoxicating drink as a beverage is
highly penal when done by any person;
when by licensed person it is good
ground for revoking the liccnse.--Act
May g, 1854 To sell or allow to be
drank on the premises any spirituous
malt or brewed liquors, wine or cider, on
Sunday, is forbidden.--Act Feb. 2G
1858.
Under this law, we shall hold hereaf
ter that, if the front or back entrance
to any restaurant is open, and guests ar
admitted on Sunday, presumptively th
statute has been been violated; and i
young men, minors, are allowed to loa
about a saloon (whether it is shown tha
they drink liquor there, or not,) tn
Court will hold that the keeper is no
properly conducting his business, anC
) persistence in such course after notice
: will be ground for revoking his or he
l license. The Court will hold these pres
ent applicants to a strict complianc
+ with the law-the more from the fac
!, that it is shown that there is good de;
y of drunkenness in Catawissa, and b.
reason of the evidence given TO tn
II Court of the loose manner in which til
u restaurant business has been there col
/ Quoted.
Il If the warning now given does nc
J produce reform, so that the law shall |
: observed, we will not onl y revoke thes
l. licenses, but will grant no others.
+ In regard to the application of MIR
10 Truckenmiler,w who is married woman,
. is objected that for that reason she ougt
not to be licensed. She is the owner
the property, and was licensed befo
q she was married. 1t has not been ii
T. practice to reject applications on tn
l. ground the licensee is responsible fC
Y the acts of her agents; for violation
Ie the law, the bondsmen are liable to
le Judgment for the two thousand dolla
1t penalty in her bond.
n Berkheimer sold beer between the fir
le of April and the first of May; duril
t. this period Moyer held the license, b
n his lease had eXpired; Berkheimer W;
1t therefore selling without license; but,
20 he had an agreement drawn by an {
r. torney) to sell as agent for Meyer,
ID may have believed that he had a rig
lr to sell. 1t has been held by anoth
r. state that a sale between the time of t
ii going out of one tenant having licen
Iy and the application by the new tenant
Id not n violation of law. Though we
It. not assent to this view, we consider t
ic reason insufficient for refusing this
ms cense.
H. In regard to Smith, while there is sol
evidence of his drinking, it does not {
ny pear that he is considered to be n man
W Incorporate habits; but, in regard to hi
e we say, as we have on other occaSiC
he (and with good effect, that his holdi
lit the license will, in this respect; depe
er upon his habits in the future.
rt- Under these restrictions. these licCn,
en- are granted.