Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1885-06-17
CRACKERS AND CHEESE
NOT a WHOLESOME AND REAsONABLE
JUDICIAL DIET.
Judge Patterson Files an opinion which !,
Intended TO Warn Country Landlords Of
Their Shortcomings Crackers and
Cheese for Judge and Barrister.

The Oak Hill tavern, Little Britain township; |
in which it will be remembered that the re- |
against the license based their |
case largely on the fact that Hickman had
once refused TO give Judge Patterson,
himself and w. A. Wilson, ESQ.,,
their supper when they came to his
hotel, "aiter the women had gone
to bed" 1t is only fair TO the judge
to say that Hickman did not know
who he was and after he found out, he
was quite willing to let him sleep to a late
hour and give him a good breakfast next
morning. The opinion Is published in fun,
even at this late day, 1t is full of warning for
licensed tavern-keepers who may be called
upon to entertain belated judges unawares:
The Obligations Of Landlords.
In quarter sessions of Lancaster county, Janu-
ary sessions, iss2 IN the matter OF the appii-
cation OF y. W. Hickman, for tavern license.
This application was presented and argued
before the court on March Goth, 1885, when II
appeared that +. w. Hickman, q proprietor
Of hotel in Little Britain township, said
county, had filed his petition for license in
usual certificate and bond.
Remonstrances we're filed by citizens in the
vicinity, who are opposed to the granting OF
licenses and dispositions under the rule Of
court were taken by the respective parties
by the petitioners and the remonstrants.
At the argument before the court, objec-
tions were made to the reading and conside-
| rations of both additional petitions on behalf
| OF the applicant and also to the hearing of adj
| ditional remonstrants, on account of them
| not having been filed in time as required by
| the rules of court such additional petitions
and remonstrances had therefore 10 be re-
| jected.
That omission or oversight was misfor-
tune TO both parties, and is regretted by the
| court.
The remonstranse filed to the granting of
this license, sets forth that the applicant
"has been in the habit ofturning away stran-
"gers who applied for entertainment, and
| "refusing to furnish both meals and lodging.
"His louse, therefore, has been and Is kept,
"not 80 much as place for public entertain
"ment, bnt mostly rs a place for the sale Of
"intoxioating liquors. Instead Of thtS thSc- taT t1
"being an attachment te The thtsa tavern, the tav-
"ern Is, TO al Rtents and purposes, simply
ian ailHhment to the bar"
| fThe end for which such licenses are is
Issued, has therefore, In this case been de-
"feated."
"The remonstrants further state, that the
"necessity for this tavern, moreover, IL
"scarcely apparent, and that neither do the
| "great majority of the citizens of the town
"ship desire that this house shall continue
| Hto receive a license"
The aforesaid contain the whole charges
on flo against the applicant, and III fully
| made out and persisted in, by this applicant
or other public housekeepers, when in
formed of their duty, would afford ample
cause TO revoke their licenses.
, | In this case depostions were taken by
both sides, and read to the court, but it did
not appear in any Of the testimony that the
applicant had ever sold liquor on Sunday OF
| to minors, or to persons intoxicated, or had
| violated the law In any of those particulars
| and that fact should go far to condone some
r | minor offences against the law.
, Tho proofs appearing i'm the dispositions
read did show that this applicant had dc
G MED to persons on at least two different oc
| casions no more, meals and entertainment
y when asked for by travellers, and wheI
;. wanted, too, at not unreasonable hours
a One of these occasions, at least, was fla
grant disregard of the duties imposed on pub
lie housekeepers, under the license granted
by the court.
o The applicants for entertainment in thi
n | Instance had travelled twenty-five miles in
private conveyance, without anything to ca
since early dinner, and arrived at this hote
" | at just thirty minutes past eight o'clock IL
the evening. Not an unreasonable hour, w
:" think, and stopping before the door inquiries
y of the landlord If they could be accommo
s. dated for the night the reply was in tn
At affirmative, and after entering the house
. said TO the proprietor, that they wished
warm supper. He replied that he could no
- get up a warm supper at that late hour OF tn
. night The travellers expressed the SUI
1t | prise, and then requested to be accomnc
IS dated with a cold check, and said that woul
Is | he satisfactory. This request was as prompt
II refused, and being extremely hungry, the
, resorted to q store in the village, and ther
y with crackers and cheese aud cold watel
III that were kindly furnished to them, the
10 | abated the hunger so far as was at all safe o
Is the diet mentioned. They returned to til
l. | hotel and were furnished with good beds an
\, | a promise of breakfast, at a certain hou
., which was entirely too early for the convcI
. fence of his guests, and they accordingl
re adopted a later hour for rising, supposin
10 that the rules of the house would hardly d.
in prive them of breakfast ifappled for in til
Of g..r. In ia I'm Ste
4. fortunately not disappointed for little atit
:, | the hour mentioned, they were provide
~ with most excellent and bountiful breal
IN fast
IN properly, and the evening previous rea
or | the court license hanging on the wall, b
re | would have seen that II was expressly thei
"a printed, that ga license to keepa hotel, in
" 'commodate the public and entertai
le "strangers and travellers"
OF Now there was certainly no excuse Il
such dereliction of duty-such apparentl
wilful indifference to the wants and necess
h ties of those strangers, for whose entertain
ment he had asked for and obtained sp
cial grant from the court refusal to eI
tertain travellers under the circumstanc,
IN mentioned, whether IL resulted from igno
" | ance of the laws or otherwise, had it bee
40 shown to have been of frequent occurrenc
S ss the action of the court in this case would
80 imperative
IL Wnat Is tne uuty OF tne court In u
in premises?
to The act of 1875, the last law enacted reg
lating the granting of licenses, says II
court shall fix by rule or standing order
IN | time at which application for licenses shall
m heard, and at which time all persons appl
,v ing or making objections to license, may [
y heard by evidence, petition, remonstrance
III counsel" and under the proper discretion
II ii Is understood the court may grant IL
y license or refuse the same, whenever in ii
th opinion of the court the same is not nece
ir sary for the accommodation of the public an
entertainment of strangers and travellers
and also upon sufficient cause being showl
the court may revoke any license granted
them.
rs Our supreme court have held that 1t Is Ii
ID duty OF the court granting license to hear an
al determine each case on its evidence and fac
as to ascertain the fitness of tho applicant, IL
M necessity of his house for the accomm
S. m dation as a hotel, or as an eating-house, an
y to see that the applicant has fully compile
IS with the law before his license can
TO granted.
of This is large discretion, and 1t is TO /
# exercised primarily for the public good an
a, secondarily for the private interest, say th
supreme court 1t Is an error to suppose tn,
y the sole duty of the court IL confined to III
is inquiry whether the applicant is citizen
At the United States and is man of goo
i" moral character and temperate HABITS"
| to lar liSor Ii np Va