68 A.2d 730 | Pa. | 1949
This is an appeal from the dismissal of plaintiff's Bill in Equity. The Alpha Club of West Philadelphia is a social club located at 19th and Chestnut Streets. On May 5, 1948, the Club was charged by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board with the following violations: first, that the organization is operated "by and for one Frank P. Walsh"; second, that the organization's business is not conducted "through officers regularly elected"; third, that persons are admitted to membership "without written application, investigation and ballot"; fourth, that the Club "failed and neglected to keep complete and truthful records covering the operation" of its licensed organization; and fifth, that the Club "deliberately falsified the records." The Club was cited to appear on May 17, 1948, at 12:30 P. M., to show cause why its license should not be revoked and why the bond *55 filed with the application for its license should not be vacated by reason of the alleged violations. The Club was also directed to bring certain of its records to the hearing.
The Club on May 19, 1948, filed a Bill of Complaint in the court below averring that the several paragraphs of the citation failed to indicate the nature of the charges; when, where, how and what was done and the persons involved with sufficient specificity to give plaintiff notice thereof and a reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense. Plaintiff further objected to the subpœna duces tecum included in the citation because it ordered the production of plaintiff's records as far back as 1933. Plaintiff declared that the citation "fails to afford the licensee procedural due process of law." Plaintiff prayed that the court require the defendant "to file an amended citation stating particularly the nature of the violations alleged, indicating when, where, how and what was done, and the persons involved; that defendant state specifically the nature of the charges in such manner as will afford the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to prepare a defense; that the dates on which the acts are alleged to have occurred, which are charged to be violations of the law, be specified particularly so that plaintiff may know whether or not they have been committed within a year prior to the issuance of the citation;" and, "that the subpœna duces tecum be restricted to material relevant to incidents occurring within a year prior to the issuance of the citation."
An Answer raising preliminary objections was filed by the Board; the court below sustained these objections and dismissed the Bill. This appeal followed.
The court in dismissing the Bill pointed out that on May 13, 1948, "the Board advised plaintiff's attorney of the particular sections of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Act and the Board regulations promulgated thereunder upon which the alleged violations were predicated. *56 At the same time it also advised plaintiff's attorney that the evidence in support of the charges was obtained from the club records and certain documents which were under subpœna; that sufficient information was contained in the citation to enable plaintiff to prepare its defense."
The court in its opinion set forth that the Club's Liquor License, which was issued to plaintiff under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Act of November 29, 1933, P. L. 15, as reënacted and amended (
In regard to the subpœna duces tecum, the lower court stated that the authority for the issuance of the subpœna was found in Section 520 of The Administrative Code (Act of April 9, 1929, P. L. 177, as amended),
The court below quoted the following from the opinion of this Court in that case: "It may be conceded for present purposes that authority to issue the subpœna described in section 520 was given but, as the next sentence shows, the subpœna was a mere notice embodying the elements stated and not a subpœna in the sense in which that term is generally employed in judicial procedure." The Court then said: "Plaintiff is here asking equitable relief from this Court on the ground that the subpœna duces tecum issued by the Board in the instant case is unreasonable, does not meet the requirements of law and is therefore void. However, we think that the principle of the Mallen case, supra, is here controlling, and that thereunder in the orderly administration of justice a Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County will at all times be open to plaintiff where its rights will be fully protected."
We find no substantial basis for the complaint of the appellant that the nature of the offense with which he is charged was not set forth with sufficient particularity. Certain the first three specifications were sufficiently definite to enable the plaintiff to comprehend the charges it had to meet. As to the allegation that the Alpha Club "failed and neglected to keep complete and truthful records," and "falsified its records," the records themselves, if truthful, will be the best answer to that charge, *58 and these records are in the possession of the plaintiff. Those who assert that the records are inaccurate and false have the burden of proving it. There is no basis for plaintiff's fourth and fifth complaints.
In Stoner v. Higginson et al.,
The decree is affirmed at appellant's cost.