The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1890-10-04

" saloon and " restaurant. But the phrase
ology of Section 1886 before quoted is, when
taken altogether, so peculiar that the courts
have placed upon the act narrower construc-
ton than the one Indicated. and have construed
the word place, as used III that and subse
quent sections, to mean the particular room in
which the violation of the law was committed,
This construction has rendered the statute of
little or no practical effect in suppressiug
nusances.
In support of this statement permit me TO
call your attention to few of the many in
stances which have come TO my know ledge in
the application of the law. In one of the vii
lagos OF our state, q man occupied four rooms
in conducting his business. The only main en-
trance to them leads from the street directly
into n q largest room in which were billiard
tables Dat Of this room opened three smaller
rooms Re was brought into court charged
with ~ i attaining n nuisance in the building in
which said rooms were situate and filed plea
of gritty in which he described the nuisance as
the room at the right of the entrance to the
billiard room on the first floor of the build
ing described i'll the indictment, which plea
was accepted by the court. The room so adj
Judged nuisance was one OF the smaller ones
opening out of the billiard room, and when that
was closed by order of the court. all the re-
spondent had do was to move his bar into one
of the other small rooms and carry on his ille-
gal traffic as freely as he had done before.
Another person who was indicted for maintain
OF business block and the cellar underneath
the same. He was n wel-known volator of
the law A search of the premises was made.
but matters had been SO well attended to that
the only liquor discovered was III the cellar.
The court accepted a plea of guilty which de
scribed the nuisance as n room IN one corner OF
the cellar and made an order closing said room,
but leaving all the rooms above mentioned I'M
affected by the Judgment. Possibly another
instance will aid in showing the insuflicency
of this statute when construed as above midi
Gated A dealer of liquors was brought into
court charged with maintaining a nuisance.
The place OF business consisted OF ut least four
rooms. the main and only entrance to which
led directly from the street into the room
where he kept groceries, Connected with tins
room by doors We're other rooms, in one OF
which was kept a well-equipped bar. Others
were used for storage and for fuel. In a search
of these premises, which had evidently been
anticipated, liquor was found secreted i'll the
fuel room. The respondent filed plea of
guilty of maintaining nuisance in the room
last named, which plea was accepted by the
court. and the ma jesty of the law was MAIN
tanned by closing the respondents woodshed,
while he was left to give a hearty welcome to
his patrons in the rooms where they had been
accustomed to be received. 1t has been claimed,
and with some reason, that if this construction
of the statute be carried but a little further
the interior of the jug will be deemed
place and declared nuisance. i'll which
the order of the court will be posted upon
the cork and the remaining jugs in the same
closet remain unaffected by the order.
In calling attention to these cases by way of
illustration | do not intend to cast any rettec-
ton upon the courts issuing such orders, but
do it to call attention to the peculiar phraseol-
ogy of the statutes which permit such orders
to be made. which orders have brought rdicule
upon the courts and have rendered attempts to
enforce an otherwise effective statute farccal.
A IL. 81, % tla, tbnt,
out of the provision permitting the place adj
judged nuisance to be opened by the owner
when he has fled the bond prescribed by law.
BY reason of the practice before noticed such
bonds usually cover only of the several
rooms occupied by the dealer, so that he may
go the round of his apartments and upon each
of his convictions give fresh bond and, until
the number of his convictions equal the num-
Der of his rooms there is no need that he vio-
late the conditions of either of the bonds pre-
viously given. In practice, also, even i'll a
breach of the condition, have never had case
come to my knowledge where the bond was
prosecuted. | do not pretend to say where the
blame rests | simply know that in general
such bond is of no practical use i'll restrain
& the party giving the same from further
violation of the law, and the result is that
man may continue in business i'll substantially
the same place year after year, though he be
convicted time after time in the same court.
| have in mind the case of one man who has
been in business in precisely the same rooms
for three OF four years. Thath place though
called a grocery, is a saloon, is matter of
public notoriety. He was once indicted for
maintaining nuisance and, not caring to take
a trial. forfeited his bonds AT the following
term of court two additional prosecutions under
the nuisance act and one for illegal sales were
pending against him, in all of which he was
convicted. Six months later there were pend
ing against him four different prosecutions in
tha atna fnp m "a
one for illegal sales, one for keeping with in
tent to sell. and one on the disclosure of Il pen
son found intoxicated, all of which cases were
continued to the next term on account of the
sickness of the respondent, Twelve months
later this same man was in the same court
charged with maintaining nuisance and had
five other prosecutions pending against him.
lie pleaded guilty to maintaining a nuisance,
but the court limited the operation of its order
to a store room mentioned in the plea, while
the Other cases were continued. AT the fol-
lowing term the same man was III court, again
charged with maintaining "A nuisance upon the
same premises and was convicted, but only one
of the four rooms occupied by him was affected
by the order SO, year after year, in precisely
the same rooms, this man has gone on persist
emily violating the law.
Another difficulty that asserts itself in the
enforcement OF this statute arises from the
fact that while, under the law as it now stands,
the person convicted can not again open the
place adiudged nuisance without giving the
bond prescribed by the statute, any other per-
son may step in and do so. The result is that
the OStcnSibl' proprietorship OF the saloon
changes as often as judgments are entered
broad enough in their terms to really affect
the business but the saloon itself goes on rs if
nothing had happened. In most instances of
this kind the real proprietorship rests in the
person first convicted although it is sometimes
difficult to demonstrate this fact in a court of
justice.
There is no reason for such condition of
things AS | have described. Let the law be so
amended that every order adjudging place
to be common nuisance shall be broad enough
to cover the entire premises occupied by the
respondent whether they consist of one room
or twenty; let such premises be closed not
only against the respondent himself but
against all persons whomsoever, and for any
and every purpose let the clause providing
for opening the same upon giving a bond be
repealed and have every order for closing a
nuisance absolute in its terms and not subject