, 1880-07-11
SALE .0E LIQUOR 10 MINORS.

CHICAGO, July l0.-To the Public: A few
days ago a notice appeared IN the
daily press Of this city that Chaplin
s. Gore, B. Baum, and Peter +. Ma
guire had been arrested for selling liquor to
minors; and subsequent notice Informed
the public that these cases had come before
Justice r. B. Brown, and were by him dis
missed.
The issue in these cases was of so much
Importance that the Executive Committee OF
the Citizens League for the Suppression Of
the Sale Of Liquor to Minors deem it duty
which they owe TO the youth Of the city and
to the people in general that full statement
Of the facts should be made to the public:
Late in the month of May last a mother ap-
piled to the Citizens League for advice and
aid in the prosecution of certain saloonkeep-
ers and others who had either sold or given
! her boy, Is years Of age, Intoxicating liquors.
She stated that her SON had been i'll q good
situation, and up TO about two months ago
had been as good boY:s a'ly mother could
led into bad ha1its,-llaa been visiting Chaplt,
81 Cores, B. Bauln's, and other PLACES, aud
had been supplied with whisky and
other, liquors without stint; that he
notorious len Of infany, where he had been
| supplied with wine, etc. that In orsler to
keep up these habits he had robbed his enl-
ployer OF large sum OF money, and was, &c
the time she sought the ai,l Of the League, in
| the County Jail. The aid and assistance of
the League was gladly rendered, and The re-
| suit was the arrest of the whole Of the above
named parties Oh the Charge Of selling liquors
to minors. They were all placed under bon@s
| trial. Upon that day all look change OF
| venue to Justice Brown, the defendants,
with the exception Of Baum, being repre-
sented by Dir. Charles Il. Reed.
In the case OF Chaplin d Gore two witnesses
besides the boy himself testified he had
whisky often in their store on Twenty
second street; and the agent Of Chaplin IS
Gore, in charge Of that store, said that he
had sold him whisky several times and had
never taken the precautlo'' to ask the boy his
age, or make any inquiries regarding hin.
The defense was, that Instructions had been
given by the defendants never to sell to
is} tried to Ad obey eNs them; that they thought
eane taS 0Gy {kero was In ei ca;iriaye n@' ike e
a man; treated the drivers a1hl Others Ike q
man; spent his money lks inal'Iifad a h a that
keeper for selling liquor to Il. boy of Is when
the saoonkeeper thought i,c WAS a nall.
This was the only ground Of defense offered:
In addition 10 these proven and undlsputed
paipabfe yiolation of the Statute, the prose.
cution rend and pressed upon the attention Of
the Justice the case Of AlcCutcheon vs.. The
People, in the. Goth Illinois, in which
the Supreme Court, IL IN exceeaiing- ':e';'1ins
discuss the exact question raised by Cnapil
+I Gore-viz.: That under the draM-shop act
the intent is all element Of the oifense,:-that
the act OF selling liquors tn Il ninor Is not
the seller know at the time the boy. was a
minor. The Supreme Court. say: s. We can
not concur in this view of the law Tile
license procured under the first section OF the
sell Intoxicating liquors to miners, except
upon one coudltion-viz.: he shall have The
family physician: ,,: TIE l laW ,. imposes sss
upon the Licensed seller nd1S the IutS tH sfe M
authorized to buy, and if he makes a sale
without this knowledge, he does It at his
peril" Farther on i'll the satne opinion the
Court say: 1T is no answer to tllts view TO
saw the licensee may sometimes be imposed
upon, and made to suffer the penalties of the
law when liz had no intention to violate its
provisions. THIS is 4 risk Incident to the
Us he receives the gains ,herewitl, he must
assume also with it ali the h:zards.": And
the Court fortities this view OF the law by
citing in support Of it decisions o[ the Su-
pre1ne Courts 2f Massachusetts' Aeht"eNs.
Subsequently our Supreme Court, upon
the same question. being again presented. in
tho case Of Farmer US. The People. 18th I'LL
below erred in instrutt1ng the jury that it
did l'1 not matter whether plaintiff. iii error
Ena,y the person to whom he sold liquor was
Il minor Or not, as he was bound t. know he
hihitei to sell. We see no error in this. If
4 different construction wrre given to the
statute, as contendsd for, it would almost
alnount to IN abrosation Of this prohibition.