Page: 3

Liquor Licenses.
____

THE DISTRIBUTION OF PRIZES.  THOSE
WHO GOT THEM AND THOSE WHO
DID NOT.
_______

A session of Court was held on Monday to hear applications for liquor licenses.  All the applicants who have a license against whom no remonstrances were filed were granted a license.  Owing to a slight error in the wording of their applications the licenses of Terrence O'Donnell and James Ward were not granted until Wednesday.
  The following have been held under advisement:
......

WHOLESALE DEALERS' LICENSES.

Andrew P. McWilliams, Bridgeport
  Jno. F. Betz & Son, Norriton. New application.

BOTTLERS' LICENSES.

Hiram McCool, Ambler.  New application.
  Benj. C. Thornton, Cheltenham.  New application.
  Devlin & Coates, Jenkintown.  New application.
  Shipe & Stringer, Marlborough, New application.
  Froelich & Pfaender, Pottstown, New application.

BREWERS' LICENSES.

Frank X. Reiger, Conshohocken. New application.
  Henry Steyer, Greenlane, New application.
  Gulf Brewing Company, Upper Marion, New application.

AGENCY LICENSES.

Milton G. Erb, agent for D. G. Yuengling & Son, Pottstown.  New application.
  Nathaniel W. McMorgan, agent for Liebert & Obert, Lower Merion, New application.

DISTILLERY LICENSE.

Abram Longaker and Jacob G. Kinsey, Limerick.  New application.
  The Court will hear all remonstrances on Monday, April 25th, and say whether or not the applications will be granted.

______________________

Against the Brewery.

The remonstrances which the ladies of the W. C. T. U. have been circulated for signers petitioning the court to refuse a license to the Gulf Mills Brewery has been filed in Court.  The activity of the ladies is shown by the fact that it is the most largely signed petition ever presented to the Court.  It contains 2119 signatures secured from the following places:
Conshohocken.........................216
West Conshohocken.................26
Gulf Mills.....................................54
Bryn Mawr................................159
Haverford College.....................24
Port Providence........................79
Collegeville..............................100
Overbrook..................................27
North Wales and Gwynedd......88
Narcissa.....................................68
Plymouth....................................69
Pottstown...................................82
Royersford.................................95
Norristown...............................763
Bridgeport...............................101
The petition has been more largely signed away from this vicinity that it has been by our residents. The Court will decide for or against the granting of the license on the 25th of this month.

________________

Better for Liquor Dealers.

Justice Paxson of the Supreme Court of the state reversed the important liquor decision of the quarter session court of this county in the case of Commonwealth against Francis Hess, of Philadelphia.  The decision is an important one to liquor dealers throughout the State.
  Order for beer and porter were sent from week to week to Hess' place of business by Frank Cottman, a hotel keeper in Jenkintown, and the beer and porter were loaded on Hess' wagon and delivered.  It was changed that Hess had violated the liquor law by delivering liquor by means of his wagon, in Montgomery County.  The Court of Quarter Sessions found that a clear case had been made out against the bottler.
  With this view Justice Paxon does not agree, and in an opinion issued said: "the defendant was convicted in the Court below of selling liquor without a license, but it must be conceded that he was pursunig (sic) a lawful business.  He paid a large sum of money for the privilege of carrying it on.  It was not denied and could not well be under the act of Assembly and our decisions thereon, that he has a right to sell his liquor at wholesale, not only to customers in the city of Philadelphia but throughout the State and county at large.
  "Both the appellant and his customer in Montgomery County were engaged in a lawful business.  The appellant had a right to sell and his customer the right to buy the liquor in question.  We do not think the Legislature intended to prohibit the delivery of goods in a manner recognized in other kinds of business, especially we not to indulge in a metaphysical hair-splitting in the construction of a penal statute, and make man criminals by judicial constructions who are not so in fact or intent.  The judgment is therefore reversed.