McGeehan, Donges and Colie. The opinion of the court was delivered by Donges, J.A.D.
Appeal is taken to set aside an order of suspension for 20 days of appellant's wholesale liquor license, on eight charges involving violations of rules and regulations of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. At the time fixed for hearing by the respondent, appellant withdrew its plea of not guilty and entered a plea of non vult to all the charges.
The only question for determination is as to whether the order of suspension is harsh, oppressive and unjust and should be set aside as an abuse of discretion of respondent.
Under date of August 16, 1948, appellant was charged with violations of various rules and regulations of the Department involved, which the Commissioner has summarized as follows:
"1. That it delivered alcoholic beverages to a retailer without accompanying invoice of sale, in violation of Rule 6 of State Regulations No. 39.
"2. That it transported alcoholic beverages in an automobile having no transportation insignia affixed thereto, in violation of Rule 2 of State Regulations No. 17.
"3. That it failed to affix to the exterior of a vehicle the transportation insignia which had been issued therefor, in violation of Rule 11 of State Regulations No. 17.
"4, 6, 7. That it delivered to several retailers alcoholic beverages without their itemization on orders signed by said retailers, in violation of Rule 4 of State Regulations No. 34.
"5. That it delivered alcoholic beverages to a retailer then listed in default and accepted in payment therefor ordinary checks of third persons, in violation of Rule 4 (a) of State Regulations No. 39.
"8. That it failed to notify the State Commissioner of Alcoholic Beverage Control of a default by a retail licensee, in violation of Rule 5 (b) of State Regulations No. 39."
As to the first three charges there is no denial that, on July 22, 1948, an automobile, which had been rented by appellant, was being used to transport two cases of whiskey for which there was no invoice to sustain the claim of the driver employee of appellant that it was to be delivered to a retail licensee, and that it had no transportation insignia, although one had been issued for the vehicle. All of which acts were in violation of the cited rules of the department.
As to charges 4, 6 and 7, it was not denied that various shipments of alcoholics were delivered to several retail licensees, without signed orders therefor, and without being ordered by ...