The Morris County chronicle. [volume] (Morristown, N.J.) 1877-1915, 1899-01-13
EVIDENCE
WAS FAULTY
Excise Board Fails to Revoke j.
LOOney'S License.


Accept Surrender of License
Counselor 0sBrien Cited a Num-
ber of Reasons Why the Commits
sioners Could Not Take Final
Action.
The long deferred trial of charges
against Patrick j. Looney for violation
of the license law was heard by the
Board of Excise on Wednesday evening.
Mr.. Looney was the proprietor of the
Farmers Hotel prior to the fire that
partially destroyed that building.
Although charges had been formally
presented of selling after hours, keeping
disorderly place. harboring habitual
drunkards and Sunday selling, only the
last named charge was tried.
Mr.. Looney submitted to the board a
formal surrender Of his license, which
was granted on February 8, 1893, stating
as a reason that his place had been made
untenable by fire.
The application Of M. Lewis Brewer
was then presented, asking for license
at the same place, Chairman Sturgis
ruled that as there was still in existence
q license for the farmers Hotel, another
application for the same privilege could
not be considered at that time.
Thomas j. % Brien, counsel for Looney,
said that as the privilege had been sur
rendered, no license existed, to which
the chair replied that this would mot be
the case until the board had first &C
cepted the surrender.
In answer to question, City Counsel
Muir said it was at the discretion of the
board whether or not the surrender be
accepted. The law provides that NO
license shall be granted for any period
less than one year, but cc0nsel was of
the opinion that I'M the event of the sur
render being accepted no rebate coald be
collected.
D. F. Barkman, counsel for thecitizens
making charges against Looney, opened
the proceedings for revocation Of license
by making n motion chat the board re-
fuse to accept the serrender.
Nh. O'Brien's motion to accept had
been fret denied.
Counsel for the defense desired state.
ments to go on record to the effect that
the board had no jurisdiction in the
imatter, Tor, un6Br an ordinance passed
FOR its government, no power is given
for the revocation Of licenses. He asked
that authority such power be read,
but none was Forthcoming
Chairman Sturgis said the beard wOal6
hear evidence on selling outside of legal
hours.
Mr.. O'Brien here offered another
ohection, declaring that the board was
Unconstitutional.
i Although eighteen witnesses had been
'subpoenaed. but five put in an appear.
.ance. B5fore the fret OF these was
I'oalled, Mr. o Brien said that the board
had no power to subpoena Witnesses
Mr.. iBarkman said the witnesses who
failed tO;appear should be held IN con.
4 tempt, but Mr.. O'Brien Thought the
board would have an interesting time In
any effert that might be made in this
I'directi0n.
| William Clark was the first witness,
and he testified to having visited the
hotel ,On three or four Sundays. He
said he had purchased beer by the glass
from aibartender. He testified to hav.
ing entered throughs the front or office
'l.door, as did all the witnesses.
John Vincent had visited the place on
two Sundays and bought whiskey or
one occasion. He was arrested the same
day for drunkenness and could not tell
with any degree of accuracy what had
occurred on the day in question. Win.
cent was accompanied by Jesse r.
Smith, who was most cheerful witness
and apparently as glib distorter of past
happenings. In fact, so ridiculous were
some of his answers that the crowd
present was frequently convulsed with
laughter. Still, Smith tried to ob4ige
counsel of both sides. When he testified
tohaving bought half pint Of birch
beer, the chairman thought the climax
had been reached and the genial Jesse
was dismissed; and if the pink liquid
called birch beer has such lasting effect
on others as 1t seems to have had in
Smiths case, the less sold of it the better.
William Williams, colored, testified to
having gone as far as the hotel "stoop''
one Sunday last summer, but said he
was refused liquor.
Andrew Smith, the final witness, had
never been at the hotel on Sunday.
At this point Mr.. O'Brien asked that
| the petition be read, in which charges
were made, and to which were affixed
the names of Rev. s. z. Batten. DIR. II.
Vaughan and Eugene A. Carroll.
Mr.. O'Brien said it was ''an insult to
the dignity of the board to present such
weak. faulty and derogatory evidence, !"
while two OF the three persons making
charges. Mr.. Batten and DIR. Vaughan.
sat quietly by instead of going on the
stand and telling what they alleged in
the paper signed by themselves
Mr.. O'Brien's motion to dismiss the
case was denied.
Mr.. Barkman spoke briefly to the
effect that three distinct cases of Sunday
selling had been proved, and as the
witnesses appeared unwillingly, their
testimony should be taken as the truth.
A recess was taken by the board. and
when the roll was called on their return
Messrs. McCollum and Sturgis voted
against the revocation and Mr.. Fox
favored 1t.
Upon motion of Mr.. Fox adjournment