The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1891-06-06
LADIES AGAINST A SALOON.
But the Excise Board Approves
the License.
Throe Ladies Among the Many Witnesses
at the Hearing of the Application for
aLiquor License by G. L. Darnall Be-
fore the Excise Bonrd-Judge Robert
son VIII Have to Decide the Matter.

c. L. Darnall made application yes
terday morning for barroom license at
$50 Shenandoah avenue.
The excise board met att. w. Miller's
office. A large number of witnesses were
in attendance, among them being three
ladies.
Witnesses for the application were
introduced, and Mr.. Darnall said his
place was suitable for the sale of liquor.
He knew Of no particular reasons why
Mr.. Seymour should object.
Officers Flick, Merriman and Cuban k
made statements as to tbs police pro-
lection afforded tho people in that To-
cality, which they said is as good as in
any part of the city. They also said
that Mr.. Darnall was suitable man to
run the business so far as they knew.
Messrs. Cooper, Dyer, Seibert and
Wright next testified. The latter gen.
tleman testified that the place whore
Darnall proposed to open was more sui
table than any saloon in the business
section of the city. He was particularly
severe On the police and said that the
entire force was useless to tho city
They did not break up the crowds which
hang around the doors in the business
section.
Lynch Gardner said he did not object
to the saloon but his wife did, inst as
other women would do.
Then three ladies testified. They OBJ
posed the saloon, and one of them said
If Darnall sold her husband any liquor
she would prosecute him. She always
kept liquor in the house for him and
dealt it out as he should have it.
Another lady said her husband had
received his death blow at Darnalls,
but he wasn't dead yet. She did not
think IL was suitable place to keep a
saloon because it would be so enticing
to the shop men.
The third lady runs boarding
house and said she believed the saloon
would injure her business.
Then followed an array of witnesses
against tho saloon. They were j. NJ
Seymour, f. i. Wright, b. L. Wright,
John Pepper, &. a. Urquhart and Ed
ward Bower. These gentlemen all own
property or live in tho immediate vi
entity of Darnall's proposed saloon.
They said it would deprcciate the
value of their property and be danger
Gus to their families. The great plea
was the lack of police protection.
Many of them asserted that they had
not seen policeman for months, while
others who favored tho saloon said the
officers did their duty in that part of
the city as we'll as in any other.
Mr.. Loclett represented Darnall and
made short address in which he out
lined the various testimony brought to
bear against Darnall, and said there
was a discrepancy in the testimony
which could not be accounted for unless
1T was to prevent tho man from obtain
ing his rights.
j. III. Turner represented the object
ing property owners, after which tho
board took the case and retired. They
consulted but short time. and on re-
turning voted unanimously in favor of
granting the license.
Mr.. Eckloif said there was great
discrepancy in the testimony relative
to police protection which had been
brought TO bear against tho applicant
that made him view the case in more
favorable light
The matter has not ended yet and
will be carried before Judge Robert son
this morning. The Directing property
owners will again he present.