The record-union., 1892-03-18
DECENCY SCORES A POINT.
Lucey, the Rosebud Dive-Keeper,
Convicted.
He Sold Liquor without License
Men Who Drank Whisky There
and Paid Money for 1t.

The trial of Ed. Lucey, proprietor of the
notorious Rosebud dive on l. street,
formerly run by Peter Rossi and Googy
Welch, was held yesterday in the Police
Court before jury composed of the fol-
lowing-named citizens: r. II. Petit, A.
r. Abbott. II. c. Megerle, p. A. Miller,
NJ. Wise, 4. II. Griesel, w. II. Cass, c..
Ehman, Peter Fuchs, Aaron Wilson and
William Strader.
City Attorney Hart offered in evidence
Ordinance No. 27G, relating to the issu-
ance of licenses for the sale of liquor by
retail.
The first witness called was officer
William Mclaughlin, who testified that
Lucey had latterly been conducting the
Rosebud dive. Witness arrested Lucey
on the 9th Of the month for selling liquor
without a license. Lucey admitted that
he had no license, but denied that he had
sold liquor or beer.
The officer then described the appear
ance OF the bar and It's numerous bottles.
On cross examination witness said he
did not see any liquor sold at the place.
Counselor Anderson asked the witness
.If he knew whether or not Lucey had
applied for a license, to which the prose
cution objected.
Judge Cravens said the matter of APP
plying for license had nothing to do
with the case. The question at issue was,
did the defendant have a license?
Mr.. Anderson succeeded, however, in
getting an answer from witness to the ef-
feet tnat Lucoy said he had applied 1or
and been refused q license.
THERE. WAS LIQUOR SOLD.
Dennis Connor, Lucev's barkeeper,
a +l,rf I I,
the bar at the Rosebud or the night of
March 9th, when Mclaughlin arrested
Lucey.
Frank Leon swore that he was in the
Rosebud about s O'Clock on that evening
ana himself and friend named Hickey
ordered whisky to drink They were
supplied with the liquor and paid for it.
}. +. Hickey testified to having gone to
the Rosebud with Leon and bought and
drank some whisky there.
William Taylor testified that on the
evening of the 9th he drank glass of
beer ia the Rosebud saloon.
LUCEY WAS THERE.
Officer Mclaughlin was recalled and
testified that Lucey, the proprietor. was
present in the Rosebud saloon and be-
hind the bar all during the evening of
the 9Th instant.
Mr.. Anderson offered to prove that
Lucey had made application for LIQUOR
license, but Judge Cravens decided that
the point was irrelevant.
SOME ASTOUNDING PROPOSITIONS.
The case was briefly out ably argued by
City Attorney Hart for the prosecution,
but Mr.. Anderson for the defense argued
at some length on issues which had been
ruled out OF the record. He cOntended
that, because Lucey bad asked for a
license, there was "no element of crimi-
n in,
his saloon without a license, although he
had been refused the licensed
AMERICAN FREEDOM" OUTRAGED.
Another point argued by Mr.. Anderson
was that IL had not been shown that
Iucey himself sold any of the liouor
bought in the Rosebud saloon on the
night OF the 5th instant, and therefore
could not be held responsible for what
was done. He denied the power of the
! City Trustees to refuse man a license:
such was an Infringement of the rights OF
citizens-of the glorious right of Ameri-
can freedom.
At this point Judge Cravens called the
orators attention to the fact that Jury
| had nothing to do with the question of
! the power of the Trustees, nor OF the
Legislature which had conferred certain
powers upon the board.
HEATED CONTROVERSY ENsUED,
During which the counsel sought to main
tain his position, but the court said he
would not submit to any bulldozing, and
ordered Mr.. Anderson to proceed with
his argument on matters pertinent to the
record of the case.
Mr.. Anderson thought he should be
permitted even to go outside the record
III defense OF his client, who is an unfor-
tunate cripple.
Counsel made the novel assertion that
the city had no right to prosecute Lucev
for selling liquor without license. be-
cause the citv refused MIN license when
he asked for one!
[The natural inference would be that
every man has q right to sell LIQUOR
with license if he can get one, and with
out incense II he cannot get one.
THE CASE CLOSED.
City Attorney Hart read from the ordi-
nance to show that the person who
keeps" saloon is amenable If liuuor is
sold therein, whether personally present
or not.
Mr. Hart showed also that the element
OF criminal intent was All important
feature in the case. 1t was manifest that
when Lucey was refused license he set
ABOUT to violate the law by keeping a
liquor saloon without such license.
Judge Cravens then instructed the iurv
as to the law in the case, and concluded
by saying that if the jury were satisfied
that liquor was sold in defendants place
OF business without a license, whether by
himself or employees, it was their duty to
hnd the defendant guilty.
CLEAR CASE OF GUILT,
The jury retired for deliberation, and in
about five minutes returned verdict of
guilty as charged"
Judgment was deferred until Tuesday
next.
RRIIIr nInnr,