Ajax Club Liquor License Case

34 A.2d 326, 153 Pa. Super. 473, 1943 Pa. Super. LEXIS 100
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 25, 1943
DocketAppeal, 93
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 34 A.2d 326 (Ajax Club Liquor License Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ajax Club Liquor License Case, 34 A.2d 326, 153 Pa. Super. 473, 1943 Pa. Super. LEXIS 100 (Pa. Ct. App. 1943).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This appellant club’s liquor license was revoked by the Liquor Control Board after a hearing at which violations of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Act of November 29, 1933, P. L. (Special Session) 15, and its amendments, were proved to have been committed by those in charge of the sale of liquors. On appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County, *474 the action of the board was susthined. At the hearing before that court counsel for appellant admitted that liquor had been sold to non-members, to minors, and to intoxicated persons, and that sales had been made at times and during hours not permitted by law. His contention was that the license should not be revoked on a first citation for violations of the act. That point was likewise presented to this court. There is no merit in it.

Section 410 (47 PS §744-410) provides: “Upon such hearing, if satisfied that any such violation has occurred, or for other sufficient cause, the board shall immediately suspend or revoke the license.”

In Pacewicz Liquor License Case, 152 Pa. Superior Ct. 123, 31 A. 2d 361, the same contention was advanced by a restaurant liquor licensee and was denied by us. It is time that holders of liquor licenses understand that they violate the law at the peril of losing their licenses.

Whatever this club may have been in the past, as conducted just prior to the revocation of its license it was only a drinking place. Liquor was sold in open violation of the law, and almost anyone could be a “member” for a day or two, on payment of an insignificant sum, or even on credit. That is not the kind of a ‘club’ contemplated by the Liquor Control Act.

The appeal is dismissed and the order revoking the license is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Latrobe Armed Services Ass'n
329 A.2d 549 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Fumea Liquor License Case
142 A.2d 326 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1958)
Labor Lyceum Ass'n
12 Pa. D. & C.2d 1 (Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas, 1957)
Reiter Liquor License Case
98 A.2d 465 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1953)
Ortuglio Liquor License Case
62 A.2d 69 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1948)
Turner v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
53 A.2d 849 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1947)
Andracchio Liquor License Case
49 A.2d 843 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1946)
Pine Grove Fish & Game Protective Ass'n Liquor License Case
40 A.2d 885 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1944)
Elite Social Club & Debating Society Liquor License Case
40 A.2d 883 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1944)
Lehigh Valley Brewery Workers Home Ass'n Liquor License Case
35 A.2d 561 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 A.2d 326, 153 Pa. Super. 473, 1943 Pa. Super. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ajax-club-liquor-license-case-pasuperct-1943.