The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1896-01-22
nisorstion in Liquor Cases.


During the sitting of the Superior
Court in Philadelphia the appeal of
George l.. Doberneek from the appeal of
the Quarter Sessions Court of Indiana
county, though it belonged to the Pitts
burg district, was given special hearing,
and after argument the Court left the
matter in the hands of Judge Mccarthy
TO prepare its decision. The Court then
adjourned TO meet on the first Monday OF
the present month in Scranton, and the
decision of the case was there handed
down on Tuesday.
Doberneel had applied for the license
of brewery and had been refused. He
thereupon appealed to the Superior Court
and that Court has just reversed the
Quarter Sessions of Indiana county.
In doing so Judge Mccarthy said:
at is well settled that the discretion
vested i'm the Court of Quarter Sessions
under the act of June . 1891, to grant or
refuse licenses for the sale of vinouS and
spirituous malt or brewed liquors by
wholesale will not justify the arbitrary
grant or refusal of such licenses, but that
il is judicial discretion to be exercised
for legal reasons and in a judicial man
ner. There must be a judicial hearing
and if the license is refused the refusal
must be for a legal reason. Where these
two points appear the Appellate Court
will not discuss the correctness of the re-
suit reached by the court below, but If
there has not been a judicial hearing or
if the reasons assigned for refusal are not
legal and valid the judgement will be re-
versed. 1t seems reasonable that the
Court should not have the same kind and
extent of discretion in all kinds of licen-
ses and that the discretion should be
greatest i'm the cases OF hotels and res
taurants, whose principal trade is 10 sell
liquor by the drink to the consumer and
least in those of brewers and distillers,
who are manufacturers and farthest re-
moved from the consumer.
"In the present ease it appears from
/ the record that there was a judicial hear
/ ing. The license was refused, and the
! reasons therefor are set out in am order
/ of the Court.
'-The first reason expressed is that the
place to be licensed is not necessary
for public recommendation This is not n
| legal and valid reason. The case oi
| Mark Gemas' appeal is directly in point
upon this question. There the action OF
| the Court of Quarter Sessions in refusing
a license for distiilery under the act OF
June 9, 1881, 'as unnecessary for the ae-
commodation of the public was reversed
and procedendo awarded on the ground
that the proviso of the fourth section ol
the act expressly enacts that the neces-
sity for the accommodation of the publ,
shall not apply TO the case of brewer OF
distiller, and that the sixth section Of the
act which would seem 70 give a discre
ton to the Court To refuse licenses where
ever the same are not necessary for tho
accommodation Of the public in general
''The second reason assigned by th'
court below for the refusal of the licens'
is because applicant is not citizen o
the borough OF Indiana, where the brew
cry i located
'The only provisions of the act of jun
8, 1891, having relation TO citizenship o
residence are the first and third clause
of section 4, which require the petition Il
contain the name present address of ap
plicant and how long he has there resid
ed and the place of birth of said appii
cant, and if naturalized. These pro
visions do not rsscribe that the appli
cant shall be citizen or resident of an,
particular locality, nor is there any Othe
enactment which so preScribes, and tn
reason thus assigned for the refusal of tn
license is because il is well known TO tn
court judicially that i'm the conduct of tn
brewery heretofore, when the owner VIII
, yet owns it had license, the license law
were violated and he was convicted there
for, and the manner in which the brew
cry was conducted was the cause of grea
disorder and confusion in the town.
; appears that i'm this reason the court rC
fers to the conviction of Frank NJ. Dobei
neck. which occurred some eight year
; | ago. We are unable TO see that the fa'
that Frank VI. Doberneck being n 1
-. | censee was guilty of infractions of th
law eight years ago affords any groun
for the inference that George l.. Dobel
neck, another man, if made a Licenses
would be guilty of infractions of the la
at the present time. Such propositio
!. is neither good law nor sound logic, an
the reason thus assigned is neither leg;
nor valid.
I'VE are OF opinion, therefore, tn;
none of the reasons assigned for the r,
fusal of this license are legal and vail
under the statute. Judgment reverse
and procedendo awarded