Case Name: PETITION OF DAVID GOLDMAN, FOR LICENSE
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1890-11-10
Citations: 138 Pa. 321
Docket Number: No. 107
Parties: PETITION OF DAVID GOLDMAN, FOR LICENSE.
Judges: Before Paxson, C. J., Green, Clark, Williams, Mc-Collum and Mitchell, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 321–322

Head Matter:
PETITION OF DAVID GOLDMAN, FOR LICENSE.
APPEAL BY PETITIONEE, EROM THE COUBT OE QUARTER SESSIONS OE ALLEGHENY COUNTY.
Argued October 30, 1890 —
Decided November 10, 1890.
An order of the court below refusing, after hearing and consideration, the appellant’s application for a license to sell liquors at wholesale, under the act of May 24, 1887, P. L. 194, affirmed.
Before Paxson, C. J., Green, Clark, Williams, Mc-Collum and Mitchell, JJ.
No. 107 October Term 1890, Sup, Ct.; court below, No. 462 March Term 1890, Q. S.
On February 4, 1890, David Goldman filed his application for a license to sell liquors at wholesale, under the act of May 24,1887, P. L. 194. The application appeared to be in due form and accompanied by the proper bond. The record, as presented in the paper-books, did not set out any examination of witnesses, but copied in the “ Docket Entries ” was the following order:
“ And now April 80, 1890, after hearing and upon due consideration, the following applications of David Goldman et al., for license to sell liquors at wholesale, are hereby refused, for the reason, inter alia, that the applicants do not have the qualifications required by the act of assembly relative thereto.”
The petitioner took this appeal, filing the following assignments of error:
1. The court erred in refusing to grant the petition of David Goldman for a license to sell liquors at wholesale, as prayed for.
2. The record showing that the petition and bond of David Goldman were in due form, and that no remonstrance or objection was filed or made to the same, and that the petitioner had complied with the requisites of the law, the court erred in refusing to grant him a license, as prayed for.
Mr. Charles L. Powers, for the appellant.
Counsel cited: Pollard’s Pet., 127 Pa. 507.
There was no appearance, contra.

Opinion:
Pee. Curiam:
The record shows that the court below .refused to grant a wholesale license to appellant to sell liquors, for the reason that he did not possess the qualifications required by the act of assembly. This is sufficient.
Judgment affirmed.