Appeal, No. 23, Oct. T., 1956, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1954, Miscellaneous Liquor Docket No. 1090, in re appeal of J. C. Grille, Inc. Order affirmed.
Michael H. Egnal, with him Don F. D'Agui and Herbert Brener, for appellants.
Russell C. Wismer, Special Deputy Attorney General, with him Horace A. Segelbaum, Deputy Attorney General, and Herbert B. Cohen, Attorney General, for Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board.
Irwin S. Lasky, for protestants.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Carr, JJ.
[ 181 Pa. Super. Page 459]
On September 13, 1954, J. C. Grille, Incorporated, filed with the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board an application for the transfer to it, at 1450 Greenwood Street in the City of Philadelphia, of the restaurant liquor license issued to Capobianco for premises at 1233-35 Buttonwood Street in said city. At the hearing, on November 23, 1954, the application was protested by persons residing in the vicinity of the premises to which the license was to be transferred. On December 9, 1954, the Board refused the application, whereupon J. C. Grille, Incorporated, appealed to the Court of Quarter Sessions. After hearing de novo on March 25, 1955, the trial judge, on August 17, 1955, dismissed the appeal and sustained the order of the Board refusing the transfer. This appeal to the Superior Court followed.
At the hearing before the Board's examiner, the investigating officer testified that the "reasons listed in the refusal letter are: a restricted institution within 300 feet; a restriction in the deed and individual protests". The testimony established that 1450 Greenwood Street is within 300 feet of the Temple University stadium and tennis courts. While the refusal to approve the transfer might have been based upon this circumstance alone, Haase Liquor License Case, 175 Pa. Superior Ct. 618, 106 A.2d 865, no reference was made to it, either by the Board or by the court below. The opinion of the Board sets forth that "the evidence adduced established the following facts:
[ 181 Pa. Super. Page 460]
"1. There is a restriction prohibiting the use of the property for the sale of alcoholic or spirituous liquors for consumption on the premises.
"2. Remonstrances have been filed by and on behalf of residents of the community in opposition to the proposed transfer of a restaurant liquor license to this location.
"The Board is of the opinion that under all of the evidence, a license cannot be granted for these premises by reason of the restriction prohibiting the use thereof for the sale of alcoholic or spirituous liquors for consumption therein, and that this application for ...