In re Knarr

Citations

• 127 Pa. 554
• 18 A. 639
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1149

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. Where the general laws relating to the granting of licenses, to wit, the acts of March 31,1856, P. L. 200; April 20,1858, P. L. 365 ; March 22, 1867, P. L. 40, were in force prior to the act of May 24, 1887, P. L. 194, the granting or refusing of licenses to wholesale dealers in liquors continues to be within the discretion of the Court of Quarter Sessions of the proper county: Nordstrom’s Petition, ante, 542.</p> <p>2. Wherefore, when, from the petition for an alternative mandamus and the accompanying record, it appears that the Court of Quarter Sessions of Jefferson eounly heard an application for a wholesale license, and upon due consideration refused it, although no objection or remonstrance was filed of record, the writ will be refused: Pollard’s Petition, ante, 507, and Prospect Brewing Co.’s Petition, ante, 523, distinguished.</p> <p>3. The office of a mandamus, in such cases, is to require the performance of a judicial function: if a judge refuse or neglect to hear, the Supreme Court will enjoin upon him the performance of that duty; but, when he has heard and determined, the exercise of his discretion will not be revised unless in extreme cases: Raudenbusch’s Petition, 120 Pa. 328 ; Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 120 Pa. 518; Newlin’s Petition, 123 Pa. 541.</p>