From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Elk Casino Liquor License Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Apr 14, 1970
264 A.2d 427 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1970)

Opinion

March 18, 1970.

April 14, 1970.

Liquor Law — Licenses — Municipalities split so that each part is separated by another municipality — Amendment of September 15, 1961, P.L. 1337, to Liquor Code — Applicability only in case of geographical split — Purpose of Liquor Code.

1. The amendment of September 15, 1961, P.L. 1337, to Section 461(a) of the Liquor Code (which permits the granting of a license "in each part of a municipality where such municipality is split so that each part thereof is separated by another municipality") is applicable only in case of a geographical split.

2. The purpose of liquor control legislation is to regulate and restrain sales of liquor, not to promote them.

3. In this case, in which it appeared that the premises sought to be licensed were in the northern portion of a township; that the township completely surrounded a borough, and no part of the township was divided from the remainder; and that the applicants contended that the other licensed establishments in the township were located in the southern portion, and that there was no access between the northern and southern portions of the township without passing through the borough; it was Held that the applicants did not qualify under the 1961 amendment of the Liquor Code.

Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, and CERCONE, JJ.

Appeal, No. 206, Oct. T., 1970, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Elk County, No. 222 of 1969, in case of Elk Casino Liquor License Case. Order of court below reversed and order of board reinstated.

Appeal by applicant from decision of Liquor Control Board refusing to issue new restaurant liquor license. Before GREINER, P.J.

Order entered sustaining appeal and directing issuance of license. Commonwealth appealed.

Donald D. Doerr, Special Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas J. Shannon, Assistant Attorney General, and William C. Sennett, Attorney General, for appellant. Gordon J. Daghir, with him Houston Daghir, for appellee.


Argued March 18, 1970.


On October 2, 1968, the executors of the estate of Lottie VanSlander filed with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board an application for a new restaurant liquor license for premises located in the northern portion of Benzinger Township, Elk County. Following a hearing, the application was refused by the Board. Upon appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Elk County, Criminal Division, that tribunal entered an order, November 14, 1969, directing the Board to issue the license. This appeal by the Board followed.

It is undisputed that the quota of licenses for Benzinger Township is already exceeded. The theory of the applicants is that they qualify under the 1961 amendment to Section 461(a) of the Liquor Code, which permits the granting of a license "in each part of a municipality where such municipality is split so that each part thereof is separated by another municipality". The applicants contend, and the court below agreed, that Benzinger Township is split by St. Marys Borough within the meaning of the statutory exception. The record discloses that, at the hearing, it was stipulated by counsel "that the Borough of St. Marys does not entirely split the Township of Benzinger but rather the Township of Benzinger completely surrounds the Borough of St. Marys".

Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended, 47 P.S. 4-461.

Webster defines the adjective "split" as meaning "divided". In the case at bar it clearly appears, not only by the stipulation of counsel, but also by the map offered in evidence, that no part of Benzinger Township has been divided from the remainder.

Applicants argue that the other licensed establishments in Benzinger Township are located in the southern portion, and that there is no access between the northern and southern portions of the township without passing through the Borough of St. Marys. However, it is our view that the legislature intended the exception to apply only in case of a geographical split. The purpose of liquor control legislation is to regulate and restrain sales of liquor, not to promote them: Bethel Township Veterans Home Association Liquor License Case, 180 Pa. Super. 159, 119 A.2d 613.

The order of the court below is reversed, and the order of the Board is reinstated.


Summaries of

Elk Casino Liquor License Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Apr 14, 1970
264 A.2d 427 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1970)
Case details for

Elk Casino Liquor License Case

Case Details

Full title:Elk Casino Liquor License Case

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Apr 14, 1970

Citations

264 A.2d 427 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1970)
264 A.2d 427