Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-03-28
A NEW LIQUOR CASE.
Questions Raised in the Prosecution Of q
Mile-Limit Case.

Mile-Limit Case.
Lawyer Leon Tobriner appeared in Judge
Miller's court today as counsel for James
Dempsey, the keeper Of an alleged ''speak
easy" in the mile limit, against whom an in
formation was recently fled under section - of
| the act Of 1893
The section mentioned provides "that any
one engaging in the sale of intoxicating liquors
as specified in this act in the District Of Column
bia, who is required by it to have a license as
herein specified, without first having obtained
| license to do so as herein provided, or any
| person who shall engage in such sale in any
portion Of the District where the sale thereof is
| prohibited, upon conviction thereof shall be
fined not less than $3.50 nor more than $500, or
| be imprisoned in the District Jail or workhouse
| for not less than two months nor more than
six months. and upon every subsequent convic-
| ton of a like offense shall in addition to the
| penalty above named. to wit, fine Of not less
! than $3.50 nor more than $780, be imprisoned
| in the workhouse Of the District of Columbia
not less than three months nor more than one
year"
| When the case was called Mr.. Pugh filed a
new information in which he mentioned the
original mile limit act of 1891.
A MOTION TO QUAsH.
Mr.. Tobriner filed motion to quash on tho
following grounds:
First. Because the same is brought and in
! stituted in the name of and on behalf of the
District Of Columbia.
| Second Because the said information does
not charge the defendant with the commission
OF any offense or crimes against the law Of the
| United States.
| Third. Because the said information does
not charge this defendant with the commission
of any offense or crime against the laws of the
District.
Fourth. Because the said information does
/ Al: lzcz l. Al IL.
of any offense or crime against the laws of the
United States and District of Columbia for
which this court can proceed against him or i'm
pose a penalty.
Fifth. Because the said information does not
charge this defendant with the commission OF
any offense or crime against the laws of the
District of Columbia of the United States
on which this court has jurisdiction to proceed
| against him.
Sixth. And because of various other errors
and imperfections apparent upon the face OF
said information.
THE MOTION OvERRULED.
| Mr.. Tobriner called the courts attention tc
the motion to quash and read the motion.
| Mr.. Pugh thought the District was entitled to
more definite information in the sixth reason
/ and the court was also of the opinion that the
| reasons were too indefinite.
There are enough other reasons. however,
! the court remarked. land If any one OF them Is
! sufficient the defendants point will be gained u
| Mr.. TObriner said he did not desire to argue
| the motion at present, he could urge the rea-
| sons in q motion in arrest if it became neces-
| sary
| The court thereupon overruled the motion
and counsel noted an exception.
| The jury was then sworn and Mr. Pugh for
the District began his opening address, reading
the information.
| THE INFORMATION NOT PROPERLY FRAMED.
The reading of the information caused a sur.
| prise on the part of the court. Judge Miller
/ thought the information was not properly
/ framed. For this reason the Judge suggested
that he might grant the motion to quash
| To this Mr.. Tobriner objected As the jury
/ had been sworn he thought he was entitled to
verdict
Mr.. Pugh asked leave to enter nolle pros
| in the case.
ITO that object" said Mr.. Tobriner, ''ant
ask that the court instruct the jury to return
verdict of acquittal.''
/ For what reason?" the court asked.
| 'For the reason that the jury has been sworr
and issue joined
! Mr.. obriner asked the court if it held that
the information did not charge Offense.
| Judge Miller answered tina. he thought tn,
information was not properly framed. Tn,
court thought all necessary was 10 charg,
the selling OF liquor without license and ths
information would stand against a sale in any
part of the District.
With consent of the court DR. Pugh entered
a nolle pros. in the case and the jury was dis
| charged.
! Mr.. Pugh directed the issuance of another
warrant and set the case for hearing OF
| Thursday.