The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1886-05-07
Licenses.

in the hearing of license applications.
There were remonstrances filed against all
applicants from Benton. Samuel Halle
tine, Of Eyersgrove, and Reece Fairman,
of Lightstreet. After hearing number of
witnesses Mr.. Fairman's application was
refused on the ground that no necessity for
a second hotel in Lightstreet had been
shown.
The application of Lemuel Drake, Of
Benton, was refused because two Of the
twelve signers Of his petition were not res
idents of Benton township. A motion was
made to allow him to amend by securing
two more signers, but this was refused by
the Court, saying that as this was statu-
tory proceeding, the petition must be
strictly in compliance with the Act of AS
sembly when fled and it is too late to
amend now.
Samuel Hazeltine's application was re-
fused after hearing, because it was shown
that he had violated the liquor laws.
Numerous witnesses were called In sup.
port of ]. b. McHenry's application for a
license at Benton. This is new house,
aud the best hotel building in the county,
outside of the large towns. Nearly all the
witnesses called in support of the remon-
STRANGE admitted that they were opposed
to all licenses. The Court held the case
under advisement until Saturday.
The hearing of Hiram Hess application
was postponed urti Saturday morning,
aud decision was reserved in the case of
Artur Mclaughlin, of Centrala, until the
same time.
In passing upon licenses the Court made
the following remarks:
The rules of the Court, recommended
by committee from each of the counties
in this district and adopted, provide for
the filing of remonstrances against licenses,
and the Court is always ready to hear any
complaints, properly presented, showing
that licenses ought not to be granted. In
stead of availing themselves of the oppor-
tunity given by the rules Of Court, some
have adopted the plan OF writing anony-
nous communications to the Court setting
forth that certain persons ought not to be
licensed because of violation of the law
We have received four such communica-
tions this term, some of them m saving that
they dare not let it be known who is max
ing the complaint. There is degree of
cowardice in this that is not all creditable
to the writers. If any one knows of vio-
lations of the law it is a public duty to
make it known in the way provided by
law. In this matter the Court receives no
assistance from the constablcs. Though
there are remonstrances filed setting forth
that in certain sections of the county liquor
is sold on Sunday, sold to minors and to
habitual drunkards, and that great confu-
sion prevails, every constable has come
before us and returned under oath that
there are no violations of the liquor laws.
We make these remarks now because we
have reached the application of yelling
ton Yeager for hotel in Locust township.
A communication has been received con-
cerning this license, saying that it must
not be known who wrote it, and If ne-half
the allegations are true, this man ought
not to be licensed. If there is any one
present who knows any reason why Wei
lington Yeager's application should not be
granted, we will hear him now, otherwise
this slicense is granted, as the Court can
pay no attention to anonymous communi-
cations, il the writer has not the courage
to come before the Court and tell what he
knows.
ORDER OF THE COURT IN LICENSE CASES.
And now May 5, 1886 ORDERED that in
all cases of application for renewal of ho-
tel or restaurant license, the applicant may
file with his petition, or at any time before
or on the hearing, an affidavit setting forth
that he had not in the previous year vio-
lated or permitted to be violated, any of
the penal provisions of the law in regard
to the sale of intoxicating drinks on Sun
days, to miners, to habtual drunkards, to
persons of known intemperate hsbits, to
persons intoxicated at the time, or on cleo
ton days.
Such affidavit will be considered as prima
tacie evidence that no such violations have
occurred.
If the applicant shall neglect or refuse to
file such an affidavit, the court may, in the
exercise Of its discretion, regard such re-
fusal as conclusive evidence that such vio-
latons have occurred, and refuse the Il.
cense.
By THE Court.