The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1846-07-17
NEW YORK, FRIDAY MORNING. JULY II, 1916
Brooklyn city Intelligence.

suit came of in Brooklyn, and although not immed
was as MIR Whiting the counsel for The defence termed
it, sort Of fishing suit out of which TO make capital to
sustain the lcence law before putt in operation It
seams that the suit originally brought under the
law, but IL afterwards abandoned and the par
ties fell back the law OF 1880. and brought the pre-
sent suit under the 4t and 9th sections OF that law.
The action brought in the namo of the corporation
of Brooklyn against Miles Wood, a tavern keeper re-
contained two counts The first count claimed penalty
of S25 for selling spirituous liquors without cence and
the second claimed another penalty Of $40 for selling spi
r and allowing IL TO be drank in his house without Ii
cencc. The counts averred that Mr. Wood sold liquor,
and allowed to be drank his premises, at various
times from the 22d of May the 22d Of June last The
defendants counsel strenuously argued that the
ment too vague. and took in too great space Of
plaintiffs ought TO be compelled to elect day
days upon which the liquor was sold The Court over
ruled the objection, after which a man named Burke
was called and the following dialogue passed between
him and the plaintiffs colnsel 3
Q.-Do you know his place Of business
Ayes. sir it is at the corner OF Fulton and Atlantic
streets. in the city Of Brooklyn.
Q-What is his busnessf
A tavern keeper
Q.-Were you over there
Ayes, sir frequently.
Q.--what did you see him do there 7
Al saw him feed his birds.
AFTER that he went down and got milk
Q,-Did you see any customers come there
Q-what did Mr. Wood serve them With
Al saw him give them segars
Odd you see Wood serve them with any spirituous
liquors
Ayes, sir. Ibid.
Q.-What kind of spiriuous liquorsf
A.-Ciin and brandy
Odd you drink any OF II yourself1
Ayes, sir, did.
Q.-What did YOU pay for it
A-Threc cents glass
The for the prosecution rested after the exsmna
ton Of the witness.
Ms WnITIro for the defence. conended first that in
all penal actions the prosecutors bound to strict a
native proof Of all the averments in their declaration
In this case there was no proof that Mr.. Wood sold
without license He next took the ground that the
law of 1874, took away the power of prosecuting for
penalties from the Mayor and corporation and gave it to
the oveseers Of the poor in whose names this action
should be brought The third ground be took, wasthat
grounds he Insisted that the action could not be main
tanned The Judge charged the jury against him on the
first and third points but said he had some doubts
the second but left to the jury to decide that question
it their province to judge OF the law well
the fact The counsel for the prosecution then ahan
doned tn second the declaration and the Jury
found verdict the first count for S25 in favor Of the
plaintiffs
Mr. whiting in his address the jury made the fol,
lowing remarks. which struck MS with great force He
said he did not appear there the advocate OF drunken
ness or nemperance on the contrary he was ms much
advocate for sobrety and temperance the mayor
and corporation of Brooklyn, but his system would be
moral suasion and coercion they all knew from
perence thai whenever used sig nay fail
ed and gave instance the upheang the state
of Connecticut where similar law TO the one nov ur.
der consideration sought TO be put in force but
ry in the State up in against it, and If his
law attempted to be forced the people Of this State
tutions to their very foundation school of philo
sophy said Mr. Whiting. has unfortunately started up
amongst and at the head Of this school is the editor of
acertain morning paper in the city Of New York Al
though he had fears that this could change the
laws of and overturn society yet in their mad at
temps carry out their wild and visionary
might do great amount of mischief II tn this mischief
he wished direct the attention OF the jury If they
successful in carrying out this law what was to
prevent them from calling the legislature to prescribe
for us what are to eat as well as what We are to
drinks have they not the right to say to us you
shall not beef mutton, or other animal food;
you shall nothing but Graham bread Indian cakes,
squashes. In like manner what is to prevent them
calling the legislature to regulatethe fashion, cut
your surtous, prescribe TO the church at which
must worship II was just likely that they would
breach absurd theory Of this Sort as that they
preached the iconse law, and when broached by
Them they would doubtless call upon the legislature to
assist them in carrying it out and would be just
competent for that body to prohibit from using animal
food, in exercising our judgment in regard to
any Of the other things above mentioned as 1t was 10
prohibit us from drinking brandy He concluded
his remarks by calling the jury to frown down BY
their verdict this new school of philosophers
TINS Assault BATTERY CAsE-This case, re-
ported in yesterday Herald, resulted in verdict Of
quittsl for all the defendants.