Appeal, No. 36, March T., 1961, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of York County, Jan. T., 1959, No. 13, in case of John H. Secrist v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. Order affirmed.
John T. Miller, with him J. Richard Budding, Walter H. Compton, and Budding and Yost, and Compton, Ziegler & Hepford, for appellant.
George G. Lindsay, Assistant Attorney General, with him Horact A. Segelbaum, Assistant Attorney General, and Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, appellee.
Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).
[ 195 Pa. Super. Page 75]
This appeal is from an order of the Court of Quarter Sessions of York County affirming the order of the Liquor Control Board revoking the appellant's Restaurant Liquor License. The citation, issued by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board to John H. Secrist owner of the licensed premises known as Secrist's Cafe at 240-242 West Market Street, York, charged the appellant with selling to visibly intoxicated persons and minors, and maintaining the licensed establishment in an unsanitary condition.
A hearing was held before the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, which found that the evidence supported the allegations. Since this was the fifth violation of the licensee, it noted that a severe penalty was warranted, and revoked the appellant's license.
The appellant appealed from the order of the board to the Court of Quarter Sessions of York County. The court adopted the same findings of fact as the Liquor Control Board, and affirmed the revocation of appellant's liquor license.
The appellant's sole contention in this appeal is that there was insufficient competent evidence to support the findings of the court.
A careful review of the record satisfies us that the order of the court below was supported by sufficient competent evidence.
William Ruff testified that on April 21, 1958, being at that time 16 years of age, he entered Secrist's Cafe at about 8:30 o'clock in the evening, and, asking for a specific brand, purchased two bottles of beer. He further testified that he had purchased beer there on prior occasions, and that he was never questioned as to his age. The appellant contends taht without a ...