Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-05-02
BEER IN THE zoo.
John Crogan Convicted of Selling \,
without a License.

John Crogan Convicted of SELLING n
without n License.
John Crogan, who conducts a cafe at the
Zoo was this afternoon convicted In the
Police Court of selling beer there without
a license.
When the case was called Mr.. Edwin B.
Hay, representing the defendant stated
that he would not deny the sale without q
license from the District, but claimed that
his client had full authority to 50 sell. Mr..
Hay explained that Mr.. Crogan conducts
his place under a lease from the Zoo COM
missioners. permitting him to serve his pa
irons with beer and light wines, and con-
tended that as the park was under the ex-
elusive jurisdiction of the United States
no license from the District was necessary.
He therefore agreed to submit the case on
those facts. Judge Miller, however, deemed
II best TO hear the witnesses.
Mr.. Ferdinand Esther then testified that
one Sunday in last month he purchased
and drank a bottle of beer In the defend
ants cafe in the Zoo. He was the only
witness called on behalf of the prosecution.
Mr.. Crogan testified that he was the pro-
prietor of the cafe, identified the lease and
admitted the sale. He said that he had
been running the place for about three
years, making such sales during all that
time and had never attempted In the slight
est way to conceal such sales. On the con-
trary, he put up a sign advertising the
fact. He had. previous to making such
sales. consulted both District Commissioner
Ross and Mr.. s. T. Thomas. the attorney
for the District, and they had given him
to understand that he could go ahead under
his lease.
This closed the testimony in the case.
and Prosecuting Attorney Pugh submitted
that there was nothing for the jury 10 do
but to return a verdict Of guilty. Mr.. Hay.
however. contended that the jury should be
Instructed to acquit, for the reason that the
defendant having been granted permission
to sell the liquor mentioned by the Zoo su-
thorities and having obtained internal rev.
enue license therefor. he was not amenable
to the act of March 3. 1898. He contended
that the park was the particular domain OF
the United States, as much so as the Capt.
toi and its grounds and the National Mu-
scum, in both Of which places liquor was
sold without license therefor from the Dis
trict of Columbia
Judge Miller remarked that the Capitol
was the home the place OF official business
OF Congress. and was therefore outside the
pale OF local laws. The National Museum.
TO be in the same category.
Mr.. Hay claimed that the Zoo was also q
government reservation. and that the de-
PENDANT. having violated no Law or regula-
moles- BY the District of Columbia
The RI could not so agree although
Judge Miller admitted that the question
raised in the case was a very pretty one
1t was one. too. which he would like to see
decided in the courts above N the act OF
1893 covered acts committed within the Zoo,
then the Zoo authorities could not In any
case rescind its operation within the park.
and he would therefore instruct the Jury to
return a verdict OF guilty.
such verdict was returned when Mr.
Hay stated that he would either file a mo-
courts above by writ of habeas corpus The
defendant was released on bail