In re the Law & Order Society

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

In re the Law & Order Society

40 A. 92, 185 Pa. 572, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 754

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 25, 1898

DocketNo. 303, miscellaneous docket No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A. 92 (In re the Law & Order Society) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Law & Order Society, 40 A. 92, 185 Pa. 572, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 754 (Pa. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This petition is founded on remonstrances against different persons, forty-two in number, and scattered through twenty-two different wards. The remonstrances are all upon printed blanks calling, as the statute requires, for statements that the remon-“ strants are residents of the ward in which the license js applied for, but the blanks in this respect are not filled up. As a number of them are signed by the same person, though the places are in different wards, they have the appearance of not being genuine remonstrances by residents of the ward, but business ones by a professional informer. For all that appears the remonstrants may not be even citizens or residents of this commonwealth. The petition complains that the remonstrants were refused a hearing, but it does not show in any manner that they were entitled to one.

Such practice is too loose to be sustained.

Petition dismissed.

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

Per Curiam,

This petition is founded on remonstrances against different persons, forty-two in number, and scattered through twenty-two different wards. The remonstrances are all upon printed blanks calling, as the statute requires, for statements that the remon-“ strants are residents of the ward in which the license js applied for, but the blanks in this respect are not filled up. As a number of them are signed by the same person, though the places are in different wards, they have the appearance of not being genuine remonstrances by residents of the ward, but business ones by a professional informer. For all that appears the remonstrants may not be even citizens or residents of this commonwealth. The petition complains that the remonstrants were refused a hearing, but it does not show in any manner that they were entitled to one.

Such practice is too loose to be sustained.

Petition dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A. 92, 185 Pa. 572, 1898 Pa. LEXIS 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-law-order-society-pa-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack