Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County in the case of Joseph C. Carter, Dutch Kitchen v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, No. 74 Miscellaneous Action, 1981.
William H. Poole, Jr., with him Theodore W. Branin, Foster & Branin, for appellant.
Gary F. DiVito, Assistant Counsel, with him J. Leonard Langan, Chief Counsel, for appellee.
Judges Craig, MacPhail and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 581]
This is an appeal by Joseph C. Carter trading and doing business as the Dutch Kitchen (Licensee or Dutch Kitchen), from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County affirming a decision of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) suspending the Licensee's liquor license for ten days for serving liquor to a minor. We affirm.
The minor, a 16 year old girl, entered the bar with some friends on the evening of October 3, 1980. According to her testimony she stayed at the Dutch Kitchen, drinking, until about 12:45 when she was asked to leave after she could not produce any proof of age. She approached the bartender with an empty beer glass and asked for a refill. It was not until this time that he challenged her age. The bartender on the other hand contends that the minor was escorted out of the Dutch Kitchen at 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. Both parties agree that the minor returned to the Dutch Kitchen with her mother at approximately 1:30 a.m. when an argument erupted and the police were called. The
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 582]
minor's mother subsequently filed a complaint against the Licensee with the PLCB. The PLCB, after investigation, then charged the Licensee with serving a minor.
The trial court in its affirmance stated:
The sixteen year old girl who was the minor served testified that she drank "fifteen or twenty beers" while in Appellant's establishment before being forced to leave. While her credibility may be open to question standing alone, Joseph Carter who was tending bar that night testified that he first saw the minor when she walked up to the bar holding an empty glass and asked for a refill.
Although the bartender promptly evicted the minor, we find that the fact that she had an empty glass and asked for a refill, coupled with her own testimony, the testimony that at least later in the evening her mother found her to be intoxicated, and the fact that there was a waitress on duty the night of the incident, all indicate by a preponderance of the evidence that the minor had been served (citation omitted).
The trial court found as a fact that the Licensee did serve an intoxicating beverage to a minor and therefore concluded that the Licensee was in violation of the Liquor Code.*fn1 Since the trial court's finding and conclusion was identical to that of the PLCB, ...