The Evening critic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1881-1885, 1884-10-07
SOUND DoCtRINs, JUDGE SMELL.
Let us HNvo Some Moro of the SAM
Kind.


Let us HNvo Some Moro of the sam
Kind.
Policemen LII Riley and George shurlaud
were put on trial before the Police Cour; this
morning for assault ana battery on Edwarl
Ruppcrt, Of 0O7 Twenty first street,
Ruppert stnted that on Sunday, September
-, he was sitting In his sitting.rOom. He
beard knock AZ the door and answered IT,
tho door. Ho got an answer In a disguised
voice.
When ho opened tho door the dofendnnts
showed him aside, breaking his watch and
chain. They then ran through the private
rOoma 10 the bar.room.
The witness stated on cross.ezamlnation
mat no lived at this house with his stop
father, B. Nehmoyer, who keeps saloon there.
sold.
In regard to the right OF tho officers 10 enter
the place, Judge Smell said "It there was rea.
sonublo ground TO suspect that liquor was be-
ing sofa there md seeing persons going in aud
coming out and the place being licensed one,
tho officer had right to enter"
"Iho onlcer should have notified the pro
prietor,' said the prosecutor.
VI am not receiving any instructions from
the Attorney said the Court.
Bernard Gehmeycr, the proprietor, corrob.
GRATED the statement OF the former witness.
The case attracted quito n groat deal OF inter
est, ana number OF liquor sellers were pres.
ent who wanted to know whether policeman
could cntor saloon under tho circumstances.
who visited the place were momberB OF the
family and friends.
This closed tho prosecution.
Lieutenant Guy was called for tho defense.
uo saw people, cOlOred and white and lntoxi.
Gated, visiting tho defondants house. He
gave his men instructions TO watch the place
and mako n case against tho proprietor IL they
could. Onlcers Riley and Snurllnd, he said,
heard glasses rattling on the evening In quos.
ilon, and they saw through the window the
feet OF mon moving around In tho blr-rOOm
They did not proceed against the proprietor,
becauoe they did not get the names OF the per.
sons who wero drinking.
Riley said the complalnants chain was
broken In the scuille at the door, and he aftcr.
ward found piece OF tho chain on the button
CR his cuff
The prosecution claimed that the officers
should have boen armed with warrant, or
Ing.
Judge Smell said 1t had not boen tho practice
Tor fourteen years to have q warrant in such
cases, This does not mako II law, but II ~ in
accordance with tho feeling Of the citizens aud
courts, and II relief is wanted it Will have to
be gotten by legislation. When the laws rogu-
latlng saloons are broken, aud where there are
breaches OF revenue laws, warrants are not
deemed necessary, and the officers themselves
mu9t be Judges as 10 what their conduct
shall be.
Unless the officers havo somo discretion, ana
unless they can proceed to determine whether
the lew against the sale Of liquor on Sunday
~ being violated, the liquor laws are OF no
consequence. The police have n supervisory
power over these saloons. II they infringe on
tho rights of tho ealoon.keepers tho romedy
Is by civil suit against the officers.
The recognized feeling and law OF this Dis
trICt Is against the selling OF rum on Sunday
II this formallty OF warrant was recognized
lhere would DO no law by which We could re.
strain the selling OF liquor on Sunday. l must
therefore give Judgment for the defendants.