Petition of Sparrow

Citations

• 138 Pa. 116
• 27 W.N.C. 47
• 20 A. 711
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1246

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. Under §7, act of May 13, 1887, P. L. 108, the courts of Quarter Sessions have the discretion to grant or refuse licenses to sell liquors by retail; such discretion is to be exercised, however, in a sound judicial manner: Reed’s App., 114 Pa. 452; Raudenbusch’s Petition, 120 Pa. 328; Schlaudeeker v. Marshall, 72 Pa. 200.</p> <p>2. The responsibility for the exercise of that discretion rests upon the judges of said courts; they cannot evade it by throwing it upon the re- ' monstrants, or upon the Supreme Court, but they must exercise their own judgment and discretion, in the light afforded by the petitions, remonstrances and other evidence.</p> <p>3. The fact that the number of the remonstrants against an application considerably exceeds the number of the petitioners for it, is a circumstance which properly addresses itself to the discretion of the judge, but is not conclusive upon him, as otherwise “local option” would exist without statutory sanction.</p> <p>4. A judge to whom an application for a license is presented may inform his conscience in the manner pointed out by the act of assembly; but, to refuse a license because, in the mind of the judge, there is a belief that licenses should not be granted at all as a matter of policy, is to make law, not to administer it.</p> <p>(a) An application for a hotel license was refused upon the ground that, while the house was necessary for the accommodation of the public, the sale of liquors therein was not necessary. In his return to a writ of -'alternative mandamus, the judge who refused the license set forth all the facts of the case, as well as his reasons for the refusal:</p> <p>5.. A return that the respondent had considered the petitions and the remonstrances and, in the exercise of his discretion, had refused the license, would have been sufficient. The return showing, however, that though groat weight was given to the remonstrances, yet, as the respondent had not wholly substituted t