The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1900-06-21
LICENSE GASES.
Opinions OF the Court.

The latter part of the 9TH Section
of the Act of May I3, 1887 provides
that "upon sufficient cause being
shown or proof made to the said
Court, that the party holding license
has violated any law of this Common
wealth relating to the sale of liquors,
the Court of Quarter Sessions shall,
upon notice being gwen to the person
SO licensed, revoke the said license" 9"
This section Of the law has been
declared to be mandatory. Where
there is sufficient evidence before the
Court to establish the fact that a
licensee has violated the law OF the
State, relating to the sale of liquors,
there remains but one duty on the
part OF the Court; and that is to re-
woke the license.
The case in which the Supreme
Court has defined the duty of the
Court, in instances like the present is
that of "Carsons License 1a7 p. S.
r. $500 1t was also there held that
son proceeding to revoke license
to sell liquors, under said Section, on
the ground that licensee sold liquors
to minors, it is no sufficient excuse or
justification that he sold to them in
good faith, informed and believing
that they were Of full age"
From the opinion of GuN0ison P.
J., who determined the case in the
Court below, we learn that "The
respondent was sworn and admitted
in his testimony that he sold beer to
the two minors in question. His ex-
cuse was that their appearance indi-
Gated that they were of full age, and
that, as precaution before selling,
he asked their ages, and each respond
ed that they were of full age: that he
sold them in good faith, fully believing
them to be OF full age
By the 18th Section of the Act of
1887, it was enacted "that it shall not
be lawful for any person, with or with
out license, to furnish by sale, gift or
otherwise" "any spirtuous. vinous,
malt or brewed liquors" sat any time
to minor
The Court, however, should be
satisfied, by evidence clearly pre-
ponderating, that licensee has vio-
lated the law, before revoking a
license.
A man who has been granted a
license, has been adjudged to be a fit
person to be intrusted with it. The
llcensee having paid the sum pre-
scribed by law. for the privilege con-
ferred, is entitled to and should re-
ceive consideration.
1t was argued upon the hearing of
the Rule, that even ifthe Court should
come to the conclusion that the re-
spondent had violated the law in this
instance, it being the only one brought
to the attention of the Court, under
the authority of Bourjohn's Applica-
ton &. c. R. 80. the Court would
be justified in refusing to revoke.
This position cannot be successfully
maintained. 1t is in direct confic:
with the Section of the law quoted;
and the declaration OF our Supreme
Court, in the case first cited.
Bourjohn's case was that of an ab-
bhcahiom for license, and the Court,
Yerkes P. ]. refused to grant the
license upon the ground of non neces-
sity.
The case vas decided before the
Act of 1887 was passed.
1t is true that the Court there said
in substance, that under the spirit of
the Act of 1875, the Court should not
withhold license, for single viola
tion of the law, and, in some instances,
not even when occasional acts have
been proved.
This Court, even under the restrain
ing Act of 1887, granted licenses to
VIM. Yost and Miles Smith the present
year; although we were obliged to re-
fuse their applications for renewal last
year, because of proved violation of
the law.
The evidence on the part of the
petitioners in brief shows:-that the
three boys named, two of them aged
II years past, the other aged IS years
past, residing in Catawissa. came TO
Boomsburg to attend show held in
the Opera House on the evening of
April 28th; that after the entertain
ment the three repaired to Mr.. Gil
more's restaurant, and after being
seated around a table in the dining
apartment, one of the boys ordered
three beers; the beer was furnished
by some one, having upon him white
apron; that the boys drank the beer,
and that it was paid for, to the person
waiting upon them.
Neither of the boys attempted to
identity Mr.. Gilmore or any of his
clerks as the person who served them
with beer, They did not know the
person who waited upon them. There