Sullivan republican. [volume] (Laporte, Pa.) 1883-1896, 1896-02-21
license Court.


! 80 for hotel license; 2 merchan'
dealers; s eating houses; l distillers
license and l brewers license. VI
the AZ all were granted except the
one applied for by Richard Cum
muskey for the Dushore house
: in the borough of Dushore. This
however, has not been refused, but
is held for advisement. 1t appears
that Cummuskey is not resident oi
the county and is applying for the
license with the intention of trans
fering it to whoever might lease
the house. The Court was a little
curious about granting a license to
a resident of some adjoining county
and held the matter under advise:
ment.
The only remonstrance brought
before the court, was that brought
by the people of Forksville against
the granting of a license to Major
Seeley. There were no charges of
violating the liquor law, hence, Mr..
Seeley was granted the necessary
papers to run wet house.
There were large number of
ladies of Forksville and Laporte in
attendance.
WHAT PIE COURT sAID OF THE LIQUOR Law
Judge Dunham, after acting upon
the applications for license, that
| were not contested, at court, took
occasion to say something in regard
to the laws governing the sale Of
Intoxicating drinks.
He prefaced his remarks, by in
forming all persons who had applied
for license, that the Count expect
ed TO carry out the law relating to
the granting of license, not only to
the letter, but in It's spirit, and then
went OH to inform all persons, who
received 8 license from the Court,
that they also had a duty to perform
and that it was the duty Of the Court
to see to it, by all the ways proyid-
ed in the statute, that they also cons
piled with the laws relative to their
business under such license. That
in order to obtain license the appli-
cant had to establish, to the satls-
faction of the Court, that he was q
person Of good moral character, and
a person of temperate habits. That
because OF this character, the law
and the Court presumed that such
person would observe aud obey all
laws relative to the sale of intoxicat-
ing drinks. And that any violation
Of these laws proven to the Court by
a conviction of the party or upon a
rule to revoke the license OF such a
person-that there was no dscre-
tion left with the Court as the law
provided absolutely that such license
shall be revoked. And he warned
all persons who received license
that the Court would just as fear>
lessly and as readily revoke license
when the law required it, rs it would
grant one when the law required it to
be granted. He then took up the
various Acts of Assembly in refers
'ence TO the licenses and explained
the duties and obligations under
which persons receiving license
are placed.
First, that under the act of 1884,
it was the duty of every inn>keeper
receiving a license, to keep good
entertainment for man and horse.
He must provide for all who apply,
that are in condition to be received
into respectable house who have
the means of paying for their enters
tainment.
Second. A license to keep an eat
Ing house.or restaurant, only allowed
the person licensed to sell domestic
wines, malt and brewed liquors in
quantities of less than one quart;
and a license to keep hotel, inn or
tavern, permitted the sale of any
intoxicating drinks in quantities
less than one quart; but that no per-
son, whether licensed or not could
sell or furnish, by sale, gift or other
wise, any Intoxicating liquors upon
Sunday, or upon any day upon
which elections are held, to any one;
nor to minor, o person of known
Incorporate habits, nor to person
visibly affected by Intoxicating
liquors, at any time, under the severe
penalty of not less than fifty dollars
fine and twenty days Imprisonment
lie also took occasion to say, that
by visibly affected, the law meant
that when any person had induiged
| L., Il al l. that unu a...i1 aaa A.. L.