Harry Alan Sherman, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Meyer Umansky, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Horace A. Segelbaum, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert E. Woodside, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P. J., and Reno, Ross and Wright, JJ.
[ 173 Pa. Super. Page 553]
The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board issued citations to the licensees, Morris and George H. Reiter,
[ 173 Pa. Super. Page 554]
trading as B. & W. Restaurant, in Pittsburgh. Hearings were held before an examiner of the Board after which the Board found the charges were supported by the evidence and issued orders revoking the license and forfeiting the bond of the licensees. The licensees appealed from the Board's order of revocation to the court below, which affirmed the orders. This appeal by the licensees followed.
Under the Liquor Code of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, § 471, 47 P.S. § 4-471, the Board may suspend or revoke a license not only for violations of the liquor laws and regulations of the Board but 'upon any other sufficient cause shown'. That section also provides that 'When a license is revoked, the licensee's bond may be forfeited by the board'. Acts of licensees specifically declared unlawful by §§ 493(1) and 493(14) of the Code, 47 P.S. § 4-493(1, 14), and found by the Board to exist at the B. & W. Restaurant, include sales of liquor, or malt or brewed beverages 'to any person visibly intoxicated' and permitting 'persons of ill repute, * * * prostitutes or minors to frequent his licensed premises * * *.' The Board also found the following conditions at the licensed restaurant: permitting the solicitation of patrons for immoral purposes; permitting patrons to act in a lewd and indecent manner; permitting patrons to use profane and obscene language; and conducting the licensed premises in a noisy and disorderly manner. These conditions constitute 'other sufficient cause' for which a license may be revoked. Com. v. Lyons, 142 Pa. Super. 54, 15 A.2d 851. Moreover, the Board also found the licensed establishment was maintained in an unsanitary condition in violation of a Board regulation entitled, 'Sanitary and Lighting Conditions; Cleaning of Coils'.
The court below heard the matter de novo and concluded 'after careful hearing and consideration of all
[ 173 Pa. Super. Page 555]
of the testimony de novo, the competent evidence compels a finding of the violations' recited above. Appellants contend that there was no sufficient competent evidence to support an order of revocation of the license and forfeiture of the license bond. There is no basis for this contention.
Twelve enforcement officers of the Liquor Control Board testified that during the period April 26, 1951 to May 14, 1952 they had made repeated visits to the licensed restaurant. They described in detail the premises, and the actions and conduct of the patrons, the licensees, and their employes. They testified that on innumerable occasions alcoholic beverages were sold to visibly intoxicated persons by the licensees, their servants, agents and employes. Such sales alone are sufficient cause for the revocation of a license and forfeiture of a license bond. Furthermore, ...