
    PETITION OF H. T. McCAFFREY, FOR LICENSE. PETITION OF PHILIP SWEENEY, FOR LICENSE.
    APPEALS BY PETITIONEES EBOM THE COUBT OE QUABTEB SESSIONS OE ALLEGHENY COUNTY.
    Argued October 29, 1890 —
    Decided November 10, 1890.
    Orders of the court below refusing, after hearings held, the appellants’ applications for license to sell liquors at wholesale, under the act of May 24, 1887, P. L. 194, affirmed.
    Before Paxson, C. J., Steeeett, Geeen, Williams, Mc-Collum and Mitchell, J J.
    Nos. 101, 170 October Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, Nos. 178, 200 March Term 1890, Q. S.
    On February 4, 1890, to No. 178 of the court below, H. T. McCaffrey filed his application for a license to sell liquors at wholesale, under the act of May 24, 1887, P. L. 194. The application appeared to be in due form and accompanied by the proper bond. The abstract of the docket entries did not show that any remonstrance was filed.
    On April 8,1890, the applicant appeared in open court, was examined by his counsel, and cross-examined by Ewing, P. J. Thereafter, the following order was made:
    “ And now, hearing held April 8, 1890, and license refused April 29, 1890.”
    On February 7, 1890, to No. 200 of the court below, Philip Sweeney filed bis application for a wholesale license to sell liquors, under the act above referred to. This application appeared to be in due form, and accompanied by the proper bond. The abstract of the docket entries did not show any remonstrance filed.
    On April 8, 1890, the applicant appeared in open court, was examined by his counsel, and cross-examined by EwiNG, P. J. Thereafter, the following order was made :
    “ And now, hearing held April 8, 1890, and license refused April 11,1890.”
    Appeals were thereupon taken by the applicants, filing in each case the following assignments of error:
    1. The court erred in refusing to grant the applicant a wholesale liquor license.
    2. The record shows that no remonstrance was filed against him, that no witness was heard in court, and that no testimony was adduced in opposition to his application.
    3. The record shows that his application was in all respects conformable with the requirements of the act of May 24,1887, and the rules of court pertaining thereto.
    4. The record shows no reason for a refusal to grant his application.
    
      Mr. A. V. D. Wattersón, for the appellants.
    Counsel cited: Pollard’s Pet., 127 Pa. 507.
    There was no appearance contra.
   Per Curiam:

Judgments affirmed.  