Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-11-04

The New Insormssseu.
The ending Of the old liquor license year ana
the beginning Of the year Tor privileges 10
dispense liquors necessarily brings out MANY
facts concerning the places for which
applications Tor renewal of hcen.cs ere
made. IL is the time when cfti-
zens enter complaints against otjection-
able places and endeavor 90 rid neighborhooda
OF them By having their licenses rejected. On
the other hand. /. l. the time for the liquor
men 90 display degree of activity that 10 un-
necessary at other tines. they are obliged 10
procure the requisite number 81 signatures be-
Tore they have any chance whatever OF gettiag
their licenses
Tho mudde about the honor lave M w.s
shown IN the recent prosecutions and decisions.
the Commissioners hope will be remedied by
the incoming Congress.
The most important question now occupying
the attention Of the authorities Is the sale OF
liquor in the one-mile limit Thus far the
courts decisions have been.s gainst the District.
but the assistant attorney thinks that the in
formation filed in the Clifford case viii cover
the ground. and upon that he hopes 10 get .
decision that will make the mile-limit law ef-
fective.
The hearing of that case il looked forward 10
with interest bv both aides. An early hearing
would determine the status of the lay
in time Tor the police 60 begin opera
tons. but such an event is no, de-
sired by those who now running their
saloons and dispensing liquor over their bars,
for So long "a the case hangs they will continue
20 do business should the decision in the
Clifford case be against the defendant the
saloon keepers will have 90 close their places
CASES 10 RE HEARD TOMORROW.
The case OF Frederick Rose. proprietor Of the
Wine House. who il charged with selling wine
on Sunday in violation Of an ordinance Of the
N
will be tried tomorrow. lie will be defended
BY Mr.. Tobriner.
Judge kimball will also hear tomorrow .
charge against George &. Corliss OF violating
the act 81 1857 by sclling on SUNDAY. His
place of business is on the Bladenrburg road.
Another liquor case sct for tomorrow that
OF j. r. Ducan. against whom there 10 a charge
Of violating the act of October 81, ls6i. relat-
ing to the salc Of liquor on Sunday.
THE NEW PORN OF INFORMATION.
Phe new form Of information prepared by
Mr.. Thomas differs in some respects from that
devised by Mr.. Dumont. but whose efficacy was
never tested. ~ Attorney Hazelton withdrew
all prosecutions begun under IT.
The information framed by Mr.. Dumont was
based upon what be con;ended was a violation
of an ordnance Of the old LEVY Court. Mr..
Thomas new information II. on the other hand,
based npon the fonrth seetiono OF the act OF the
legislative assembly 81 August II. 1871. That
section L. 10 the effect that any person hable
for any license tax under the act failing 10 pay
IL before engaging IN the business shall be liza
BILE to n fine Of not less than IS or more than
$50 IN addition To the license tax.
The information in the Nan case charged the
defendant with Keeping bar room without
having obtained a license 80 TO do. con-
trary TO the act Of the Legislative assembly.
The Court in General Term said such
| information was bad because il did not charge
defenIant ptth Ina lal 10 a.
license tax when due or before engaging In the
business OF selling liquor. For time II Was
thought that the effect Of this de-
cision was 10 declare that no infor-
motion could be sustained in such cases under
the section referred TO. But. a. stated m THR
STAR OF Monday last. Judge James in render
ing the decision of the Court in General
Term in the sullivan case explained that the
court did not wish TO be so understood so,
the new information prepared by Mr.. Thomas.
is framed TO meet what Is left OF the license
| law after the decision In the Nan case.
THE LEGISLATIVE ACT.
The last section of the Legislative assembly
act of August 81, 1871, expressly repealed all
laws and ordinances Of the cities Of washingtou
aud Georgetown and Of the lcvy court incon-
sistent with the provisions % the act.
The effect of the repeating clause was to mako
one law for the entire District, repeating. q
course, the Levy Court law under which Mr..
| Dumont proposed 70 proceed. This, at least. 10
| the Interpretation which induced Mr.. Thomas
70 disregard Mr.. Dumonts view OF the law, and
which determined his action in framing his new
\ information.
Under the information proposed by Mr..
Thomas, the District inspector, 20 show that
the defendant has no proper license, any Offer
to prove tender OF the license tax OF
the performance Of any OF the conditions
precedent 20 obtaining a license IL not equiva-
lent 10 a license, and is both inadmissible and
inmaterial. Such position. Attorney Thomas
believes, will be sustained by the trial
| court and il that is done the authorities feel
confident. not only of conviction, but also that
| the conviction will be sustained by the Hughes
| court