
    In re Application of Cornelius Mundy for a Wholesale License to Sell Intoxicating Liquors.
    
      Intoxicating Liquors—Retail License as Hotel Keeper—Wholesale License—Both to Same Person—Practice—Statute.
    
    Where an applicant already has a retail license for the sale of intoxicating liquors as hotel keeper he will not be granted a wholesale license for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The law does not contemplate the blending of the two lines of ■business.
    
      (June 7, 1901.)
    
    Lore, C. J., and Spruance and Boyce, J. J., sitting.
    
      J. Frank Ball for the applicant.
    
      Wm. S. Prickett for the Law and Order Society.
    Court of General Sessions, New Castle County,
    May Term, 1901.
    To the above application the following remonstrance was filed, to wit:
    
      “We, the undersigned, respectfully remonstrate against the granting of a license to Cornelius Mundy, as applied for at this term of Court:
    “ Because he already has a retailer’s license, and because this license is not necessary for the accommodation of the public, there being already a large number of licensed places, both retail and wholesale, in the vicinity.
    “The Citizens’ League,
    “ By Geo. W. Todd,
    “ President.” (And others.)
   Mr. Prichett contended that under Rev. Code, If.ll, Section 8, an applicant who had a retailer’s license as a hotel keeper could not have combined with the same a wholesale license to sell intoxicating liquors.

Mr. Ball claimed that the Court had theretofore granted wholesale licenses under similar circumstances.

Lore, C. J.:

We have never heretofore had this question brought before us in this shape. Where such licenses have been granted they have come before us without objection as bona fide retailers of goods, wares and merchandise. The kind has never been inquired into, nor objected to. Here comes a person not claiming to be such, but a hotel keeper, and asks to combine the two—hotel keeping and wholesale liquor selling.

We refuse to grant this license, on the ground that the law does not contemplate the blending of the two lines of business named.  