Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1896-08-27

tlOll, tACcpu de llcIOiuuAtOh Se"'cu, ssAAes
was carried on, days and nights and
OH Sundays.
The bell boys had an arrangement
with the drug stor BY which IN y
were allowed a commission on what
liquor they bought there, and hence
they IS ere more accustomed " 20 there
for liquor than elsewhere, although
Drew ran his bar at the American
House for the accommodation OF the
guests Of the Van Ness House and OF
the general public up to the time he
sold the same to McCarty, which was
not a great while before the lease OF
the American House expired, March
IA, 1883. He directed guests inquir-
ing for liquor to his bar, while ne
owned it, and requested the bell boys
to 90 there; and he favored that bar
after he sold it to McCarty, who ran
it up to recent date. The boys also
derived profit from the guests, who
usually paid them something for their
services.
In the summer or fall of 1893 the
plaintiff was at the office one day and
saw Mr.. Clark hand the bell boy some
money and ON inquiry was told that
it was to buy a bottle OF ale for guest.
The plaintiff then forbade the use OF
hotel money forsuch purposes. There
upon Mr.. Clark told the boys not to
apply to the Office thereafter for mon
ey to buy liquor with, and they did
not to his knowledge, though they did
occasionally get it there without his
knowledge.
The obtaining of liquors by bell
BOYS has been Of no profit or benefit
to the hotel other than the benefit 1t
indirectly derived by accommodating
and pleasing its guests.
There is testimony tending to show
that Aubrey, bell boy from 1893 to
1889, at times kept small stock OF
ale or beer on his own account with Q
view to profit in selling the same to
guests. But if he did, it was done Sc.
cretlv and without the knowledge OF
the plaintiff or his manager or clerks.
It appeared that Mr.. Scott, who, for
a long time has kept the billiard room
in the basement of the Van Ness. has
always kept mineral waters and nom
prohibited drinks there for sale; and
the testimony on the part OF the de-
PENDANT tended to show that he also
kept Bass ale and peach cider; but we
do not find that he did. But he some.
times stored ale and wine for guests al
their request.
The testimony also tended to show
that Seeley, the present head waiter
| kept for sale, intoxicants in the store.
room, out of the dining room. Al
|, one time he had there few bottles o.
! lager beer that belonged to guest
which the guest asked him to keel
, there; but he did not keep it for sale
, and never kept any liquor there To-
sale.
, The claimed sales Of clerks to Bas
and Chapman, and the gift to Stow
! are not made out.
The cocktails spoken OF by some 0
, the witnesses were most likely obtained
: at the American House bar.
s The plaintiff did not PERSONAL.
, know of the practice of obtaining liz
I uor through the bell boys; but from
p the circumstances he must have under
stood that it prevailed to greater Q
E less extent. He was not, however, un
Q iii the occasion in 1893, aware tina
= money had ever been obtained at tn
! Office with which to pay for liquor,al
though he might have ascertained tn
: fact by inquiring. He purposed j
!. good faith not to violate the lay
& against the traffic in intoxicating lio
/ uor: but beyond that he did not III
v dertake to 60. :,
I On these facts the question is whetf
: er the defendant has made out just
4 fication. To do so, it must show sale
v bv the plaintiff co-extensive with tn
d charge.
4 It is manifest that when guess
4 brought their own liquor to the hote
4 and had it served to them, the plaiI
! tiff made no sales of it to the guests.
e This disposes Of those cases
n which the guests, whether individual
Il or associations, brought their liquor
d the hotel.
I It leaves for consideration the cas-
I'll in which liquor was procured Il
v guests at their request by the bell DO.
it and walters.
a Whatever the guests might ma,
n supposed, every such request was
" fact request to procure liquor tro
L parties other than plaintiff, as ne kel
,e no liquor for sale. In purchasing Il
In uor Of the druggist, bar or saloon kee
,e er. the guest acted through the bt
n bow or waiter; through him the que
as paid the money for the purchas
sf whether furnished by himself, the b
he OF the house. If the boy furnished
~ or rot it at the office, he did it at T
is express or implied wish Of the que
r. The property in the liquor passed {
nj rectly from the druggist, bar or
It loon keeper to the guest, as there "
b. no understanding to the contrary.
he This is the necessary legal result
,illl these transactions under the law