The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1886-05-26

Haines and Samuel Buchanan. but that the
special attack made on the house OF Alex
Rhodes. who not only permitted a young
minor son to attend his bar, but failed TO
successfully answer the allegations sworn b
by several reputable citizens, and alleged by
nineteen special remonstrants, IS sufficient
ly made ont 10 warrant the eourtin refusing
him license. The license to Buchanan and
Haines are granted that Of Alexander
Rhodes is refused.
In the matter OF the application for ~license
at Meyersdale Upon due consideration Of
all the petitions, circumstances and cyl
dence, the court IS of opinion the prepon-
derance is with the applicants. and deter
mining the matter judiciaIiy ON the cases
made, we grant the licenses of Nathaniel
siicer. John slieer. Eliza Baer, Robert
Guthrie and E. C. Walker. This may be a
large number. but there is nothing before us
to warrant refusing either. And we think
the weight OF evidence is against the appii-
cant at West Salisbury. and his license is
refused.
In the matter of the applications of Mrs.
Eliza Tayman and VIM. J. -Higginbotham,
for tavern licenses in Somerset borough, the
Court, on careful examination and due con-
sideration, find,
lst. That the petition of each of said APP
plicants is in due form, and the illness of
the applicant and the house, and the neces-
sity of the house, as q public house for the
entertainment Of strangers and travellers, is
duly certified to by at least II reputable cit
liens on each petition.
ID. That the truth Of the facts set forth
are sworn to as required by the rules of
Court, by two atlantis 10 each petition and
thar the bond is in due form with ample Sc
%curities.
In the absence OF anything appearing 10
the contrary on this showing, each appli-
cant was entitled to license under existing
laws.
To these applications remonstrances were
filed, as follows:
lst. General remoEstrance by citizens Of
the own including ladies and gentlemen
numbering % voters and 52 n~on-voters.
This remonstrance was against granting
license anywhere in the county, and alleges
that there is no necessity for such license.
Like petitions from all parts of the county,
are on file. As a rule these were general,
and were in no case considered as a factor in
determining the question.
81. A special remonstrance. signed by 12i
citizens OF the town, all of them. or nearly
SO, voters, and embracing many of the most
reputable citizens of the town, alleging
LIST. That neither of the applicants has met
all the requirements of the law in the mat
ter of the petitions, in this that they are not
certified to by at least 12 reputable citizens.
%. That one of the applicants is not of
good repute for temperance.
90. That one of the atlantis TO petition is
not of good repute for Temperance.
4th That the houses are not necessary for
the accommodation OF the public and enter
tainment of travellers.
This remonstrance was verified by the
oaths Of two prominent gentlemen of the
town, who testify That the facts Sc; forth are
true, and was supplemented by evidence
taken on rule and the depositions 6led and
read on the hearing.
The evidence was in the main against the
proprietor Of ore of the houses. and involv.
ed the violation of the law and applicants
fitness and though depositions were taken
in reply and filed and read, The case made
was no, successfully answered.
But one witness testified TO any violation
OF law by the other house. and that was not
sufficient even iftrue, to warrant a refusal
of license, in the light Of all The facts.
There was also evidence of an attempted
combination to compel or induce the Court
to change its ruling at a former term, BY
closing their doors and turning out all the
guests. including one of tine Associate Judges
during 4 full attendance at court; this how
ever Is not considered IN the determination
Of these cases. They could so close and
turn out their guests after they claimed to
keep a public house and could with impu-
nifty even curse the court if that afforded
any special qualification. But that certain
ly is 10 Excuse for the courts violating its
duties in the determination of the present
applications. Ifby such folly they arrayed
a community against themselves, it's a mat
ter of their own invitation as against the
y citizens certifying to the necessity for IL
censed houses, I2i of their fellow citizens Of
the highest respectabiiity, allege that there
Is 10 necessity and III the testimony pro-
duced; show that though there has been no
license since January Term the public, and
travellers and strangers have been quite
well entertained. a mere allegation of no
necessity, based on merely temperance views
ofthe question. even when made by I21
against q, might not avail to prevent IL
eense, under existing laws, but when the
aHegatd and pr0bdta are made to concur, the
Court can't clese Its eyes to the effect the
proof makes on the case even though some
Of the members Of the court might personal
ly differ 10 their views of necessity.
To avoid the danger OF deciding on arbi-
trary discretion, the Court looks only to the
case made by the petitions, circumstances
and evidence as required by the Act of 1870,
and previous Acts, and though the town of
Somerset may have in all 500 votes, if the
oue-half OF these purDosely remain inactive.
and take no side, neither asking for a license
or demonstrating against, the Court cannot
be expected to assume that they are either
for or against, and therefore, as it views its
duty when it looks at, ana duly considers
the petitions, remonstrances and evidence
filed in the cases, and heard at the hearing,
and decide the matter judicially or the
case a. made, il viii have done its whole
duty under the law, as it understands it.
In this light and the light of the rulings of.
the Supreme Court, We are clearly of oDin-
ion the weight of evidence is largely with
the remonstrants, and though the duty IS
unpleasant to the court, it must under the
law refuse the License of both applicants.
Complaint has been aud will be made that
private interests are struck down by Courts
refusing to grant license if this is so. how
easily it can be remedied. Let all the peo-
pie Join in demanding a plain legislative ex-
preston and we will be relieved of Judge
made law. If our ruling arouses the peo-
PIE of the county, so that they demand a
legislative expression, it viii ave subserv.
ed a good purpose, but in any event, we
have determined these cases on the
petitions, remonstrance AMI evidence,
ord. so that our ruling may be reviewed.
and hence are conscious that we performed
our whole duty under laws which we do