Foreman's License

Citations

• 20 Pa. Super. 98
• 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 191

Syllabus

<p>Liquor law — Refusal of license — Discretion of court — Disagreement of judges.</p> <p>Where the license court consists of two judges and both sit at the hearing, the application must necessarily fail if they cannot agree as to the necessity for the license, or as to any other essential. The burden is on the applicant to convince the court, as it is constituted, of the necessity for the license and of his qualifications, and if he fails in this, the decision is as conclusive, so far as his right to a license is concerned, as if the judges had agreed. Neither judge is required to break the lie by retiring from the bench, nor is it necessary for the court to order a rehearing before an outside judge; nor is there any abuse of discretion in not pursuing either of these courses.</p> <p>Indorsed on the back of a petition for a liquor license was the following order: “Jan. 25th, 1902. The Court disagree as to granting this license, thereby there is no license granted.” Held, that the order might fairly be interpreted as a definite refusal of the license.</p> <p>Where a liquor license is not granted because of the disagreement of the judges, the presumption from the record is that the petitioner was afforded a full hearing, that the court gave due consideration to the evidence, and had due regard to the number and character of the petitioners for and against (he application, and that the judge who concluded that the license should not be granted was influenced by a legal reason.</p>