Appeal, No. 185, Oct. T., 1963, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of the Peace of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1961, No. 1277 (Miscellaneous), in re Clover Bar, Incorporated, trading as "Clover Bar". Order affirmed.
Kenneth Syken, with him B. Nathaniel Richter, and Richter, Lord, Toll & Cavanaugh, for appellant.
James Iannucci, Special Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas J. Shannon, Chief Counsel for Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, and Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
[ 203 Pa. Super. Page 13]
This appeal is from the order of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County which sustained an order of the Liquor Control Board suspending appellant's liquor license for twenty days. This matter was submitted to the court below on the record established at several hearings before an examiner of the Board. The facts appear to be as follows:
On July 5, 1960, a United States Treasury agent conducted an inspection of the licensee's establishment at 1752 North 20th Street in Philadelphia, and made a William's Reagent Test on several of the opened bottles of whiskey. This test indicated something amiss with the contents of the bottles. Twelve open bottles of whiskey were seized and turned over to a chemist for the Treasury Department for analysis.
On September 22, 1960, two examiners of the liquor control board, after checking the record of purchases by the licensee at the state liquor store, went to the licensed premises and removed nine additional bottles of whiskey which they turned over to the chief chemist for the Board for analysis.
The contents of fifteen of the seized bottles were analyzed by the chemists for the treasury department and for the liquor control board. They then analyzed so-called authentic samples of the various named brands which were from unopened bottles secured either from a state store or direct from the distillery. They found that the seized samples held a far greater percentage of solids than did the authentic samples and testified that in their opinion the seized bottles had been refilled or adulterated and did not conform to the contents set forth on the labels attached to the bottles.
The court below after constructing a chart to indicate the results of the analyses of the various brands noted the similarity of the results of the analyses of the seized samples and properly concluded that these samples all came from the same source.
[ 203 Pa. Super. Page 14]
The appellant contends that the results of the tests made by the chemists should not be admitted because it was not shown that all the experiments were made under the exact same conditions; that analysis of authentic samples were made many months prior to that of the seized samples; and that it was not shown ...