Case Name: Kreiser Liquor License Case
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1958-11-14
Citations: 188 Pa. Super. 206
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 372
Parties: Kreiser Liquor License Case.
Judges: Before Rhodes, P. J., Hirt, Gunther, Wrioiit, Woodside, and Watkins, JJ. (Ervin, J., absent).
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 188
Pages: 206–212

Head Matter:
Kreiser Liquor License Case.
November 14, 1958:
Argued September 15, 1958.
Before Rhodes, P. J., Hirt, Gunther, Wrioiit, Woodside, and Watkins, JJ. (Ervin, J., absent).
Robert JL Jordan, Special Assistant Attorney General, with him Horace A. Segelbaum, Assistant Attorney General, and Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellant.
W. Hamlin Neely, with him Jacob Philip, for appellee.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Wright, J.,
On July 24, 1957, Gertrude M. Kreiser filed with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board an application for a restaurant liquor license at premises in Franklin Township, Carbon County, upon the theory that the municipality in question is located within a resort area. The Board refused the application, whereupon Mrs. Kreiser appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Carbon County. Said tribunal by opinion and order dated June 9, 1958, directed that the license be granted. The Board has appealed.
The reasons assigned by the Board for refusing the application are as follows: "1. As provided by the law, Franklin Township, Carbon County, has a quota of three licenses for the retail sale of liquor and malt beverages, and there are now five such licenses in effect of the type counted against the quota. Accordingly, the legal quota for the township is now exceeded. 2. The establishment proposed to be licensed under this application is not in a resort area, as claimed by the applicant. 3. There is no evidence of any necessity for an additional restaurant liquor license in the township".
The court below, after making thirty-five findings of fact, came to the following conclusions: "1. The Appellant's premises are located within a resort area. 2. There is a reasonable necessity for the issuance of a Restaurant Liquor License to the Appellant . . . 3. Under all the conditions and, particularly, in view of the finding that the area is in fact a resort area, the Court concludes that the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board erred in refusing to issue to Appellant a Restaurant Liquor License".
This appeal is governed by our opinion in Merman Liquor License Case, 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 200, 145 A. 2d 876, the pertinent portions of which will not be repeated but are incorporated herein by reference. Of particular significance are the following findings of fact made by the court below: "31. The proposed licensed establishment is situate in an area half devoted to farming and half forest area . 32. There are no summer boarding houses, no resort hotels and no tourist homes within the immediate area of the proposed establishment". The circumstance that many motor vehicles pass the premises, especially during hunting and fishing seasons, is not material to the issue. It is clear from the record that, except for the occupants of fifteen summer cottages within a three-mile radius, there is no influx whatever of temporary inhabitants. Nor are there suitable accommodations for a transient population.
We are convinced that the Board was not chargeable with an abuse of discretion and its conclusion that the municipality was not located within a resort area should not have been disturbed by the court below. In our view of the case, it is unnecessary to consider the question of necessity.
Order reversed.