Anthony Wayne Bar & Restaurant, Inc., Appeal
Thе Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board suspended the liquor license of the licensee fоr 30 days on findings that:
1. The licensee, by its servants, agents, or employes permitted disorderly or improper conduct on the licensed premises, on July 31, August 31 and September 15,1965.
2. The licensee, by its servants, agents or employes permitted dancing on the licensed рremises without first procuring an Amusement Permit from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, on July 31, 1965.
On appeal to this court, the case was heard de novo.
The principal witness for the board was Enforcement Officer Paul M. Fenstermaker, who visited the licensed premises on six occasions, on three of which he found no violations of the Liquor Code. On July 31, 1965, Officer Fenstermaker entered the premises at about 7:30 p.m. About 15 male patrons were in the bar; no women were present. He saw two male рatrons dancing together, and another, called Bernie, dancing alone, simulating a female stripper, shaking his hips and kicking his legs. The bartender did nothing to stop this dancing. The bоard’s finding No. 2 is supported by the evidence.
The officer furthermore observed Bernie kissing another male patron, using his tongue. At the bar patrons were feeling each other’s private parts and laughing. The bartender joined in the laughter.
On August 31, 1965, Officer Fenstermaker entered the premises at 10 p.m. where 29 male patrons were
On Septembеr 15,1965, the officer visited the licensed premises at 8:30 p.m. finding 20 men customers present; no wоmen. The patron Bernie was again present and solicited drinks from the other pаtrons. The bartender admonished Bernie for soliciting drinks, but other customers did buy for him and the bartender served them. An off-duty bartender asked Officer Fenstermaker how he had learned about the place, to which the officer replied that he had heard about it “in another gay bar”. Bernie hugged the officer as he was leaving the premises.
The licensee presented credible testimony to the effect that the manager of thе bar was unaware of any of these activities; that he was regularly absent during the hours of the officer’s visits; that, on learning of Bernie’s behavior, gave orders that Bernie was nоt to be admitted or served; that the bartender who actually participated in thе disorderly conduct is no longer employed ; and that active steps have beеn taken to avoid recurrence of this kind of behavior. Nevertheless, this evidence does nothing to disprove the occurrence of the events described by Officеr Fenstermaker. Nor, since a bartender was present at all times, does it contradict the finding that the licensee, “by its servants, agents or employees permitted disordеrly or improper conduct on the licensed premises, on July 31, August 31 and September 15, 1965”. The evidence fully supports the board’s first finding of fact.
Appellant urges that the licensеe is not legally responsible for violations committed by employes in the
“There can be no doubt but that the holder of a liquor license is responsible for the acts of his employees and may not escape suspension of his license by seeking to place the responsibility for violations on them, . . . еven though there is no direct evidence that he knew of such violations”.
The leading case is Commonwealth v. Koczwara,
The order of the Liquor Control Board is affirmed.