POB a mandamus to the court oe quarter sessions or PHILADELPHIA COUNTY.

No. 000 January Term, 1890, Sup. Ct. (E. D.)

On April 25, 1890, Michael Collarn presented his petition to the Supreme Court, praying for an alternative writ of mandamus, directed to the judges of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia county, commanding them to show cause why a license to sell liquor at wholesale should not be granted to the petitioner, under the provisions of the act of May 24,1887, P. L. 194.

The petition filed averred: That on February 7, 1890, the said Michael Collarn filed his application in said Court of Quarter Sessions, for a wholesale license to sell liquor at No. 3701 Woodland avenue, Philadelphia, under the act of May 24, 1887; that subsequently there was filed of record in said court a paper styled a remonstrance against the granting of said license, not accompanied by any affidavit of the truth of the matters alleged therein, and reading as follows:

The petition of the undersigned residents of the city of Philadelphia respectfully represents:

That they remonstrate against the application of Michael Collarn for a wholesale liquor license for the premises No. 3701 Woodland avenue, in the Twenty-seventh ward of the city of Philadelphia, and assign the following reasons:

The said applicant is not a person of good moral character, as we are informed. E. W. Karker.

I join this remonstrance on the ground that the proposed saloon is not needed, and is in the neighborhood of the University of Pennsylvania and the Newton Grammar School.

Henry C. McCook.

I join for the reasons assigned by the Rev. Dr. McCook:

R. K. McCurdy Henry M. Dechert.

Chas. W. Frost. E. Otis Kendall.

J. Rex. Allen. Thomas C. Yarnall.

Robert McCurdy.

That on April 10, 1890, the judges of said court gave the petitioner a hearing upon his application, when no witnesses appeared against him to sustain the allegations in the remonstrance, but the petitioner testified himself, under oath, and called two reputable citizens who testified, that the petitioner was a man of temperate habits and good moral character; that, in response to a question from one of the judges of said court, the petitioner stated that a number of years ago his bar-keeper had sold liquor at retail on Sunday on several occasions, without the petitioner’s knowledge, and that on complaint being made by the Law and Order Society, the petitioner promised that such sales should cease and paid the costs incurred by the society, whereupon the complaint was withdrawn ; that at said hearing the petitioner presented to the judges the following letter, which, by permission of the court, was filed of record in said proceeding:

Philadelphia, April 2, 1890.

Mr. M. Collarn:

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress