Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-04-21
HOWTHEY GET DRINKS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vesTILArED
THE POLICE COURT.
The Bygsis and It's officers sent On Tor Bell
ing Liquor without License
"a Minors.

The Bygsis and It's officers sent Vn TOT eeil-
ing Liquor withouta License
to Minors.
In the Police Court yesterday morning
when the days regular criminal docket had
been cleared Justice CrutchBeld took up the
case OF the officers Of the Hygeis Club. who
had been summoned to answer the charge OF
selling liquor on Sunday and without
license.
The investigation was Of quite an interest.
ing character, and there we're involved some
very important questions n law that greatly
concern the barkeepers OF the city and tho
numerous social clubs that have been char
tered here within the last twelve months,
some OF which are operates - indirect sun
day sdiuncts OF the regular saloons
The testimony was not Voluminous, but
counsel for the defendants made very hard
fight and made the most oil every pf1nt that
could possibly be raised. Consequently The
hearing occupied Yearly three hours time.
There were a large number Of persons in the
courtroom during the whole Of this period.
The officers OF the club. who were parties
defendant 20 the prosecution. were Marx
Nelson. president; {. G. Hewitt, viee-pcesi-
dent: John Krause, secretary; julius Niue
her. treasurer and manager. Nj. Louis ..
Wendenburg represented the club and its
officers, and Mr. ID. &. Richardson appeared
as counsel for Mr. Nelson.
ORIGIN OP THE CASE.
The case arose in this manner: LAST sun
day night before II O'Clock Policeman
sweeney saw two young men come out OF
what he supposed to be hlueoer's
bar.room and walk up the street.
They were disorderly and he arrested them.
They admitted getting liquor FROM hlueber,
whereupon the officer reported him ior self
ing lIouor on SUNDAY and to minors. In the
examination held when the case against
Kiueber was called It appeared that the
liquor was gotten in the clu0-room, and
Justice Crutchfeld, having Determined 70
get at the inward ness OF the matter, ana 10
see il the club or its officers could not be
held amenable 10 the law, issued the sum
mouses on which tue case was heard yeSier-
day.
TUE TESTIMONY.
When the case was called counsel raised
the point as to whether the proceedings
were against the defendants 10 their Official
or individual capacity. The Court repled
that they would be tried as individuals, but
that IL they were proved guilty they could he
held personally liable; that the charge might
remain az it was, and il necessary II would
be amended later
The first witness called after Policeman
Sweeney had testified TO the iscis given above
was f. w. Eyerbardt, who said he was
member OF the club.
The defence objected IN his testiiying on
the ground that EVefhardt, being member
Of the club. was equally liable 10 prosecution
with Mr. Nelson, KlubeT, and other ueul'
bcrs: that bis evidence might tend TO crlhi-
nate himself; for II be testified against the
club be would be testlfylng sgainst himself,
ss he was member OF the ciub. Dir. wen
denberg then cited numerous authorities IN
support OF the point raised, and he Claimed
that the Court could not promise immunity
from prosecution, as It did not nave Tue
authority to do so.
Mr.. Richardson also argued this question.
The Court oyerruled the objection and
proceeded 10 question the witness.
The other witnesses examined were Will
liam Mitchell, aged seventeen; Charles
Richardson, aged nineteen; Vincent Rye,
aged seventeen; and Claude Howard, AGED
eighteen, all Of whom said that they were
members Of the club and got liquor or beer,
which was paid for.
SELLING TO MINORS.
Upon this testimony Justice Cruichfeld
issued q bench warrant, charging The &C.
PENDANTS with selling liquor 10 mlnots.
Messrs. Wendenburg and Richardson
both made lengthy and exhaustive arru-
mens from the standpoint That neither the
city ordinance nor the state laws had been
violated. Mr. Richardson cited the fact that
the city ordinance prescribed a penalty for
keeping bar-rOOms open on sunday, but
mons for selling liquor on that day. These
officers, he claimed, we're no more liable IN
this case than would be the executive oiii-
GERS OF a railroad for a murder committed by
asubordinate' for there was not sclntlia OF
testimony 10 show that either his client or any
one OF the other four was present on sun
day. when the beer was gotten. Besides,
these Young men were members OF the club,
aud bought the beer from Themselves II they
bought it from anybody. and Tor this be did
not think either they or the officers could be
punished.
Mr.. Richardson also argued that the de-
PENDANTS. VINO had no license to sell liquor,
could not be called keepers oil an ordinary,
and therefore could not be prosecuted fer
selling liquor to MAJORS.
THE DECISION.
Justice Crutchdcid In announcing his de-
| csiOn SAID that he considered this the most
important case that bad been before him since
| he assembled the bench and he bad given The
subject the most mature and careful attention.
II was peculiarly painful for him 10 have 70
proceed In the matter, for be Vas friendly
| toward all OF the accused, and one Of them
| he had known intimately from his childhood
| DAYS. lie bad a duty to perform, however,
! and he proposed to do it. He tined the club
! $50 under the city ordinance for selling
| liquor without license aud sent the case on
! to the grand Jury for violation OF the State
| law in this regard. He also certified the
charge OF selling to minors to the grand
! jury.
The question was raised whether be sent
| the club OF the officers on, and be replied
that he would send on the club and certify
| the names OF It's officers, ard ali four OF the
accused were recognized, each in the sum Ok
! $500, for appearance before the judge OF the
| Hastings Court on the 6th Of May. The
witnesses wore also recognized.
An appeal was taken as 10 the fine i'm
/ pOSsd