Case Name: PETITION OF J. W. KOCH, FOR LICENSE. PETITION OF FRANK PETERS, FOR LICENSE. PETITION OF PAT. McNULTY, FOR LICENSE
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1890-11-10
Citations: 138 Pa. 318
Docket Number: Nos. 98, 111, 120
Parties: PETITION OF J. W. KOCH, FOR LICENSE. PETITION OF FRANK PETERS, FOR LICENSE. PETITION OF PAT. McNULTY, FOR LICENSE.
Judges: Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Williams, Mc-Collum and Mitchell, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
PETITION OF J. W. KOCH, FOR LICENSE. PETITION OF FRANK PETERS, FOR LICENSE. PETITION OF PAT. McNULTY, FOR LICENSE.
APPEALS BY PETITIONEES EEOM THE COURT OE QUARTER SESSIONS OE ALLEGHENY COUNTY.
Argued October 29, 1890 —
Decided November 10, 1890.
Orders of the court below refusing, after hearings had, the appellants’ applications for licenses to sell liquors at wholesale, under the act of May 24, 1887, P. L. 194, affirmed.
Before Paxson, C. J., Sterrett, Green, Williams, Mc-Collum and Mitchell, JJ.
Nos. 98, 111, 120 October Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, Nos. 445, 884, 22 March Term 1890, Q. S.
The paper-books in these cases (argued together) were all upon the same model, and alike contained the “Docket Entries,” showing the numbers and term of the applications, the date when filed, the date when refused, and the following order:
“ And now April 29,1890, after hearing and upon consideration, the following applications for wholesale and bottlers’ license to sell liquors for the year beginning May 1,1890, are refused, for the reason, inter alia, that the applicants have not the qualifications required by the acts of assembly relative thereto.
“By the Court.”
“ J W. Koch.
“ Frank Peters.
“ Patrick McNulty.
In addition, the appendix, in each case, contained a .copy of the application.
The petitioners took these appeals, specifying in each case that, 1. The court erred in refusing the applicant a license to sell intoxicating liquors as a wholesale dealer.
Mr. John Marrón, for the appellants.
Counsel cited: Pollafd’s Pet., 127 Pa. 507; Prospect Brewing Co.’s Pet., 127 Pa. 523.
There was no appearance, contra.

Opinion:
Pee Cubiam :
Judgments affirmed.