Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-01-17
MINORS IN POOL.ROOMS.
Hugh Harten Was Deceived as to the Age
of His Patrons.

Judge kimball today heard case against
one OF Lawyer Shillingtons clients for an
alleged violation of the act for the protection
of minors. Hugh Harten was the defendant.
He kept a saloon in South Washington, but
business got dull down there, and in order to
make more sales. and consequently make his
business more profitable, he determined to
transfer his place to another section. All appli-
cation made for transfer of his license,
and Thursday morning Mr.. Harten received
the news that the Commissioners had acted
favorably upon his application, and that even
ing he had general opening of his combina-
ton saloon and billiard and pool parlor.
He knew of the existence of law preventing
minors from being permitted to play pool or
billiards and so he gave his employees the neces-
ssry instructions to keep out the boys. and the
clerk made an effort TO obey his instructions.
Each young man, about whose age there was
any doubt. was questioned, but notwithstand-
ing this several boys did get in and INDUCED in
game of pool
Policemen O'Brieu and Duvall were on duty
and they procured a warrant for the proprietor
and on their complaint he taken into court
During the triala boy with long auburn locks
whose name was registered as John Ryan. APP
peared on the stand and was examined. He
had been questioned at the pool room. where
put under oath he was two wears younger and
Judge kimball questioned him concerning the
difference, and he was frank enough to say that
he lied when questioned at the pool room.
Joseph Harvey next called, ana although
he said he was only sixteen years old. Lawyer
Shilling expressed his thought by saving: HE
has an old face for his age"
Joseph went to the room with his friend Cas-
sidy. who voEched for his age. and for that
reason he was allowed the right to play.
DO Won shave?' Mr.. Shillington inquired of
Harvey.
YES. sir. he answered.
But said Judge Kimball. ''it's not ques-
ton of wniskers. The law is for the protection
of minors, and the proprietor of place can t
depend upon his looks. 1t is question of fact
and not OF appearance. The court will, of
course, take into consideration the fact of due
diligence on the part of the proprietor. The
law Is for the boys absolute protection and he
can't waive it.
Il give orders to allow no boys in my place, -
said Mr.. Harten.
When a person of doubtful age comes to
your place. said counsel, what do You do?"
''Stop them
Mr.. Harten's clerk was then called and he
told of having questioned the boys on the night
In question ana he said that Will Cassidy
vouched for Harvey.
Lawyer Shillington said that while there was
technical violation of law he thought the case
was one i'll which the court might suspend
sentence.
Judge kimball was of the same opinion. He
said that the law was intended TO protect the
boy against himself. and 1t was the duty of the
proprietor to use due diligence to ascertain the
truth of his patrons age. A young man who
wants to play pool will lie about his age" the
judge said; but in this case l think Mr.. Hsr-
ten made an attempt to comply with the law,
but probably did not use the fullest diligence.
He thought this prosecution would have good
effect and make the proprietor more careful in
the future.
The court suspended sentence, taking the
personal bonds of the defendant