The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1893-05-04

! k>Sf1IIp affecting the transfer
of retail liquor licenses and the interest cred
itors of the licensee might have in his license.
d, When application was made by Mrs. Kate
Breen, the owner of the licensed property,
for the transfer to her of the Summa license,
it was opposed by Summas creditors on the
ground first, that the transfer could not be
made without Summa's consent, and, second, /
that the creditors interests should be pro- /
tected to the extent of their debts. Judge /
Weidman directed that the transfer be made. ,
Then J. H. Pomeroy and 7. R. Beddall, Esqs.,
took writ of csrtiorari removing the case to
the Supreme Court, and on the heels Of this
proceeding took a rule on Mrs. Breen to show
cause why the order making the transfer
should not be revoked for the reason that the
a certiorGrj superseded the transfer.
/ Making this rule absolute would have been
q to close up Mrs. Breen's place of business till
the Supreme Court could pass upon the case in
February 1894 NJ. NJ. Burke, Esq, appeared
y for Mrs Breen. Judge Bechtel discharged
y the rule. The opinion is published in order
. that the HERALD readers may have copy
-, for future reference.
In his opinion Judge Bechtel says: In
effect, the rule is taken to determine whether
the writ is a sHperseleas or not We have
l. heretofore expressed our doubts as to whether
or not we should undertake to determine the
,d effect Of writs such as this. When the Com
mon Please sends writ to Justice to re
move his record, it is not left for him to say
rl,tl I,o. --,;n oh,
ly execute the Judgment he rendered VIII,
should the Common Please decide whethe
,o the writ of the Supreme Court supersedes it
authority When the Supreme Court of tn,
CIV United States sent its writ to the Supreme
&C. Court of Pennsylvania in the case of tn,
er Pennsylvania Railroad Company vs. the Com
an monwealth our Supreme Court declined I,
dispose of the question whether process
stayed, and the parties were given time t,
a apply to the Supreme Court of the United
nd States for a supersedeas Justice Woodward
ad said, Il hold that the question of Jurisdiction
and the effect of these writs of error are ques
4 tions for the Supreme Court of the United
Stetes Justice Strong said, 81 concur witt
the Chief Justice and Brother Thomson a,
he to the effect Of the writs of error from tn,
ng Supreme Court of the United States, and
ot think it is for that Court to enforce their OWL
writs.' IT, however it will be of any ad
vantage to the parties interested here to know
he our conclusion upon the question presented
and the reason therefor, they can have it. TIL,
On granting of license under the law as il
y stood previous to the present Act, was en-.
tirely in the discretion of the Court of Quar-
- ter Sessions. In Raudenbuschs case, 100 Pa
ne St., 329, it is said in substance: the grantins
sh or refusal of licenses under our present Act i
be matter of legal discretion to be exercised
b., wisely and not arbitrarily; to perform thi
duty the Court below may hear petitions
remonstrances, or witnesses and in some
IN instances act of its own knowledge, and thii
a Court will not review the manner in which
er such discretion is exercised. But the present
, Act says nothing in relation to the transfer OF
a license, and that is still governed by the
Act of April 20, 1858, Sec. 7, P. L. $685. 1t
ty provides that "if che party licensed shall die
remove or cease to keep such house, his, her
m or their license may be transferred by the
!, authority granting the same" The requisi-
tiOns of the laws under this Act permitted a
O. certain discretion to theauthority granting or
k refusing licenses, and this discretion is con-
siderably enlarged by the Act Of 1877.
While the court is required to hear and de.
eide questions relating to the transfer of
e licenses the higher court will not determine
l. how we shall decide. Chief Justice Paxon
s. says in Blumenthars case, after full dis
l, cussion of the subject, the court below had
the power, under the Act of 1858, to transfer
this license, but it was a matter of discretion
and not reuie.Da5Ie here" Petition of Babella
Blumenthal, 125 Pa, ST., 4l6. There is,
however, another serious difficulty in the
way of the parties who obtained the above
Is rule, as we stated at the time the order of
a traniser was made. Lewis Kline says the
e parties interested are creditors of Paul
Summa, who disappeared, and this is the in
terest they have in this question. Mrs. Kate
r, Breep, to whom the license was transferred,
,e owns the property for which the license was
granted, and under the order of transfer she
is required to pay proportionate share OF
4 the license fee to the parties legally entitled
e thereto. This does not seem to be satisfac,
n tory but IL apnpqrs therp Is a degirp 70 Do