Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1909-07-15
BOTH APPLICATIONS
WITHDRAWN

! UNEXPECTEDLY to a close during the
! forenoon by the withdrawing Of both
applications. AS explained in pre-
vious issue Michael Reilly desired
that the liquor license at No. $40 Mill
| street, be transferred to him from
| Patrick McCaffrey, who has been do.
( ing business at that stand for some
years past. The other application ask
ed that the liquor license at No. Ia
northumberland street be transferred
from William Dougherty to Patrick
McCafrey. In each case a remonst'
Eance was filed.
The proceedings were Of unusual IN
terest by reason OF the array of legal
talent called into the cases. Repre-
seuting the petitioners were Hon.
Grant Herring Of Sunbury, Hon. John
NJ. Garman of wilkes Barre; Thomas
G. Welsh and W. L. Slider of this
city. Offsetting these as attorney for
the remoustrances was Hon. II. M.
Hinckley, Of this city, lever before
had such an array Of tai at been call
ed into play by the n re matter OF
license transfer Th presence Of the
giants was suggestiv and instructive
lv all seemed to fee chat battle roy
al was pending.
Scarcely had the proceedings began
when the clash occurred. The hrst
witness was on the stand when Mr.
Hinckley on cross examination began
to ask some pointed questions that
aimed to disprove that the applicant
was in all respects such a person that
should be entrusted with a liquor IL
cense
Mr.. Herring at once objected. The
remonstrauce, he said, raised ques-
tion only as to the applicants general
character and offered no specific OBJ
iections to granting him license. He
urged shat all specific testimony be
rejected in the hearing. Ii was gross
ly unjust. he declared, that man
should a this way be called into court
and made TO answer specific charge
without being notified Of il and thus
being enabled to prepare defense. lie
insisted that only the general speech
of the people could be considered. All
this he declared was in strict accord
ance with the rule OF court. which Mr.
Hinckley had assisted TO draft.
Mr. Herring was followed by Hon.
John III. Garman, who went into the
matter very deeply. Both speakers held
that the proceedings asking for a trans
fer were identical with those asking
for granting OF license and that the
rules adopted for the latter must apply
in the former.
Mr.. Hinckley contended that a diff
erence exists between an application
for and a transfer Of license, in thRt
in the former the applications are ad-
vertised and the public is well inform
ed on what is going on, whereas in
the matter Of transfers there is no pub
lieitv and il is only as the facts are
accidentally learned that the public
comes TO know anything Of them until
the transfer OF license is actually
made. He held that the rules relat-
ing to the granting Of license do not
apply and that any evidence that
would enlighten the conscience OF
the court' in the matter at issue was
wholly admissible.
Mr.. Herring made a formal objec.
tion and demanded that the whole
court pass upon the question. There
was a consultation between Judge
Evans and Associates Blee and Vel
liver. stter which the president judge
announced that the associates GCnCnr.
red with him in oge7rpl!rg Mr.. Her.
ring objections.
Ia Quick succession Walter o. Green,
J. W. Wall!ze. Thompson jenkins,
Richard Sheppard and Arthur Butler
testified giving the applicant, Michael
Reilly, an excellent reputation for
good moral character temperate hab.
/ its. etc.
/ APPLICATIONS WITHDRAWN.
The first witness called by the re.
monstranoe was William Toohig. Mr.
Herring at once asked to be informed
/ on what Mr.. Hinckley aimed to prove.
/ Being spprised that it had to do with
specific charges Mr. Herring formally
objected to the evideloe urging the
same reasons that he advanced IN the
former objection.
/ He again insisted that the entire
court pass upon the question. The re-
suit was the same as in the former
| case the associates sustained the presi
dent Judge.
At this junctuTe the attorneys with
drew to the consulting room. In few
minutes they returned; when Mr.. Her
ring created surprise by announcing
that they would withdraw beth ap
plications.
Judge Evans briefly announced tha
they would be accorded the privilege
of withdrawing both applications foi
transfer and the session of court, which
promised to be such long and hotly
contested one, came summarily to ,
close in little more than an hour af
ter it began.