Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1888-01-13
an Effective Stop to Boys Getting
Liquor.
JUDGE GRATTAN's RULING AS TO THE
MIDDLEMEN WHO PROCURE IT
E0p TuEM

|
FOR THEM.
| Judge Grattan, of the Hastings Court
gave an instruction to the Grand Jury
which is proving and will prove an effec-
| tive bar to minors procuring liquor. 1t has
| been custom for youths under age to
send some one over age to saloons to buy
| liquor for them. The Grand Jury. last
Friday, asked instructions from Judge
| Crattan as to what was to be done in the
! case Of the adults who bought it for them
The Judge instructed them to ind1ct them,
as the words in the law provide that any
one who sells, or ''causes to be solo,
liquor to minors shall be punished, and
! the go-between unquestionably ''cauSes to
, be sold" liquor to youths. The Grand Jury
thereupon indicted doZsn adults who
had, the evidence showed. transgressed
that provision of the law In the first case
that came up for trial, the defendant con-
fessed Judgment and the court put the fine
at $40, announcing as it did SO. that the
small fine was given only because OF the
fact that it was new ruling and unfaml.
liar to the people, but hereafter the full
extent of the law would be given 60
| betweens who we're convicted or confesse
judgment in his court.
The next case that came up was that OF
white adult charged with causing liquor
to be sold to minor" The accused stood
his chances before jury. The minor who
Il TO hY1yr O Gnn0r for hi
was put on tie stand as witness and
asked this question, by Commonwealth 3
Attorney Braxton:
HAS the accused within the last twelve
months and within the city of Stanton,
at any place, not a licensed saloon, bar
room, or other place where liquors are Sold
or given away by the drink CT measure.
sold or caused to be sold to you any in
toxicating drink p
To the witness answering this question
the defendants counsel demurred, On the
ground that Stanton has city ordinance
prescribing fine and imprisonment for any
minor who shall, 'by any device or strata
gem, or any other way, "procu1e intoxicat-
ing LIQUOR from saloon or other place
where it is sold, and that witness could nov
be compelled to answer question by which
answer be would criminate himself. The
following is the decision of the court
most important one-in passing upon this
question:
1.-THE Court having duly considered the
question as to whether the witness would
criminate himself, or furnish a link in the tes
timony for such elimination, under an ordl-
nance of the City of Staunton passed March
18th, (Here follows the ordinanco), is of the
opinion that it is unnecessary at this time to
pass ,3c7s as a ,aestion of the constitutional
ity of the said ordinance, and thereto : a1et
called upon to consider the questions of its
jurisdiction in the premises OF the propriety
of deciding upon question claimed to be
collaterally injected into this case.
sBut the Court is of opinion that the wit
ness having been asked a question in no man.
ner connected with his guilt or innocence
under said ordinance, and which can be an
swered without in any manner confessing or
denying guilt under said ordinance, that said
ordinance is no protection for him in this case
and he must answer the question"
The case was given to jury yesterday,
which returned verdict of guilty, with
fine of $40. The fine was put low on
account of the fact that the defendant
had committed the breach Of the law IN
der an appeal made by boy who pleaded
sickness. The counsel for the defendant
moved for new trial on the ground that
the verdict was contrary to the law and
evidence, and the motion will be argued at
some future day.
AS this is a new ruling and most of
those indicted had no knowledge that they
were transgressing the law, we omit the
names of those indicted.