The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-12-16

Smith Writes the opinion Affirm
ing the Finding Of the Lower
Court.
The Superior court made a series Of
important rulings at it's session in
Philadelphia this week upon the uues-
tion whether or not a company con-
trolling a number of breweries can op-
crate them under one or a number OF
breweries' licenses. The opinions were
delivered in the appeal of Lyman L.
Davis, remonstrant, from the order OF
the Quarter Sessions court of Allie
ghenY county, granting twelve licenses
to the Pittsburg Brewing company.
The corporation was alleged to have
absorbed thirteen of the fifteen brew
cries of Allegheny county Mr.. Davis
filed a remonstrance alleging that the
court had no power to grant licenses
to any person or firm having an inter-
est in more than one brewery, and that
the company was not entitled to them,
because it had abused it's corporate
authority i'm forming an illegal COM
bination or trust. The case was argued
before the court on oct. 3 last.
An order was handed down by the
court stating that the six judges who
heard the case were equally divided in
opinion, and the order of the lower
court was therefore affirmed. Judge p.
p. Smith delivered an opinion, i'm which
Judges Beaver and w. w. Porter con-
Cured, ruling in favor of the brewing
company. An opposite view was taken
in an opinion delivered by Judge Or
lady, in which President Judge Rice
and Judge Beeber concurred. Judge
Smith also handed down an opinion
affirming the order Of the same court
granting the brewing company a whole
sale liquor license.
LANGUAGE OF OPINION.
Both opinions contain interesting and
| exhaustive reviews Of the license laws
of this state, says the Philadelphia
Ledger. In his favorable ruling on the
appeal, Judge Smith says, among other
things: "In none of the legislation on
| this subject is there an express prohi-
bition Of license under the circum-
| stances here existing, nor express pro-
vision for it. Our conclusion is that
the interest in brewery is not within
the purview of the clauses of the petit
!
| tive to other places where liquors are
| sold or kept for SALE and that, how
! ever these clauses may be construed
! the Act Of 1897 authorizes the grant Of
| more than one brewery license to the
| same person by the court of quarter
! sessions, and, TO this extent, repeals
| them if they are inconsistent with this
! provision of the latter act"
pOsite view of the case:
The act Of June O. 1891. prescribes
| Just what is required of an applicant
for brewers license to authorize the
court Of quarter sessions to grant it.
and no subsequent legislation has re-
lieved the applicant of any of these
statutory requirements. The sixth and
seventh clauses of the fourth section
present an absolute bar to the granting
of more than one brewers license to a
single person in one county, and when
one such license has been granted by
the court to one person, partnership
or corporation, the authority of tho
court is fully expended"
ATTITUDE TOWARD TRUSTS.
Judge Smiths opinion contains an
titude of the courts in relation to
trusts. THE legislature" he says
having authorized the Incorporation
of the appellee, with the right to en-
gage in the brewery business and hold
property for that purpose its business
methods are beyond our consideration
No good reason appears why two OF
more breweries, which may be con,
] 4 IL.
be conducted by the same person. Nc
public interest requiring the interven,
tion of the police power is i'm any way
affected by a single ownership. If
however, the operation of thirteer
breweries by one company, instead Of
thirteen individuals, shall prove inju
riOus to the public, it is for the legis
lature to apply a remeuy. The courts
cannot, on this ground, refuse the H.
cense provided by law for the business
which the applicant is by law author
lied to conduct"
In affirming the order of the lowe
; court granting the company a whole
sale liquor license, Judge Smith say
that the statutes clearly give brewe
the right to dispose of his product a.
a wholesale dealer.
The case VIII probably be taken L
the supreme court for n final ruling
The ultimate decision will affect larg
interests in this city, where a combina
, tion of brewing firms and companies
exists.
The opinions have a particular loca
interest. as the same questions wer
passed upon by the Lackawanna cour
when the Central Pennsylvania Brew
ing company made its application 70
licenses for its several breweries il
this county The decision OF the loca
judges was in line with the one af