Ashtabula telegraph. (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1874-1880, 1878-06-28
Police Court Items.


Frank FurgusOn wasdrunk and disorder
" At the Harbor last Monday, which ended
in a fight with one Frank Mcintyre, a fire
on a steam barge, in which FurgusOn re-
ceived sound thrashing. They were both
arrested and had hearing before Police
Justice Richards; Furgason was fined 50
and costs and Mcintyre 81 and costs.
Another case for alleged violation Of the
ordinance requiring saloons to close at
1890 p. IN. in which Richard Radford was
the defendent, was tried before jury IN
this court last Wednesday afternoon.
Much delay vas caused by the difficulty in
securing a jury, and it was nearly four
O'Clock before the case was commenced.
The following is the list Of jurors: H.
Wetherwax. A. Q. Moore, F. E. Harmon,
Ell. Gilkey, - Thorp, ]. P. Robertson,
F. C. Mather, R. C. Wilcox, E. C. Streng,
L. A. Ensign. VIM. Sloan, w. W. Smith.
Chas. L. Scoville, policeman, was the first
witness examined and testified that at 1850
o'clock on the night of the oath INST while
on his beat, he found the doors of Radford's
place open, the lights brightly burning,
and heard loud talking therein. He did
not, however, claim that he saw any liquor
sold or drank. Mr.. John Granger testified
that he in company with four other gentle
men were in the saloon after 1920 o'clock
but did not drink. nor did he see any liquor
sold or drank after that hour The ques-
ton in this case was, whether closing up
of saloon means closing of the doors
and extinguishing of the lights, or clos
ing of the bar and the sale of liquor stopped
at the hour of 1890 O'Clock. Section II of
the ordinance says:
That IL shall be unlawful for any
owner. keeper or proprietor, or the agent,
servant or employee of the owner, keeper or
proprietor OF any ale, beer or porter house or
shop TO keep open, or to suffer, permit or al
low to be kept open, any such ale, beer or
porter house or shop, in said Incorporated
Village OF Ashtabula, after the hour of 1880
O'Clock p. M or on Sunday.
Solicitor Hoyt claimed that the defen-
dant had violated the ordinance in not
closing the doors in accordance with this
section.
Mr.. Theo. Hall for the defense claimed
that keeping open in the meaning of the
ordinance was, the opening Of the bar for
the sale of liquor, and referred to the third
section of the ordinance, which is as follows:
That it shall be unlawful for the
owner, keeper or pro prietor, or the agent, ser
want or employee of the owner, keeper or
proprietor of any ale, beer or porter house or
shop to sell. furnish or give away, or TO suf-
fer, permit or allow to be sold, furnished or
given away to be drank on the premises; or
permit to be drank on the premises any ale,
beer, wine or any spurious, fermented or
malt liquors, after the hour of 1890 O'Clock
p. M, or on Sunday; and any such sale, fur-
nishing or giving away ofany ale, beer, WIZ e,
porter or any spurious, malt or fermented
liquors, or allowing the same to be drank on
the premises, shall be prima faeia evidence
of keeping open within the meaning ofthls
Ordinance.
The case was given to the jury about six
o'clock and after an absence Of less than
an hour reported that they could not agree.
Nine of the jary were for conviction and
three for acquittal. The case will be tried
again next Monday.