The age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1897-1902, 1899-05-17
EMIL LESSER
WAS ACQUITTED
First Case of Police Against Res
taurant Keeper Lost.
EVIDENCE NOT SUFFICIENT
Did Not Show That the Defendant Was
Directly Concerned in the Sell
ingof Beer-Waite Should
Have Been Arrested

Emil Lesser, proprietor of the Metropoll-
the Sunday law in regard to the sale Of
liquors at yesterday mornings Sitting of
the police court.
Mr.. Lesser was arrested last Sunday
charged with having served beer to patron
of his restaurant. and the arrest has ere
ated widespread interest The defense did
not put a single witness on the stand and
denied none of the charges, but it was held
that sufficient evidence had not been
brought forward by the prosecution to war
rant a conviction.
Louis Price and VIII Reeves, two visitors
in Birmingham, were the principal wit
nesses for the prosecution. They testified
that they had gone into the Metropolitan
restaurant about noon Sunday, and had or
dered two regular dinners, costing Is cents
each, and one bottle Of beer, Is cents. One
of the regular walters in the restaurant
filed the whole order for them, bringing
the beer bottle in wrapped up in paper
When they had finished eating the waiter
gave them check for 60 cents, which in
Guided the price of the beer, and Mr.. Price
paid the bill to Mr.. Lesser himself, who
was at the cashiers desk at the time.
An effort was made by Judge Feagin to
find out what the custom was in regard to
filling out the checks; that is whether the
cashier or any one at the desk had any,
thing to do with making out the check be-
fore civ 70 no l,,,f
after argument by Mr. Glover, Mr. Les
ser's attorney, 1T was decided that this
question was not admissible.
Officers Saw t!io Beer
officers Patton and Reese were then put
on the stand, and they testified that they
had seen the beer on the table The city
then closed, and the defense closed also,
saying that they had no testimony to offer.
Mr.. Glover, in his argument, said that no
case had been made out against Mr.. Les
ser, in the first place because>it had not
been proven that he was proprietor, keeper
or that he had anything to do with the
restaurant, as alleged in the warrant. In
the second place, it had not been proved
that Mr.. Lesser was in any way connected
or that he had had anything to do with the
the waiter.
Mr.. Glover also offered a number of ar
guments as to the constitutionality of the
ordinance under which Mr.. Lesser was ar
rested.
He said that it violated the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States, in that it abridged the
rights and privileges of a certain class of
citizens. He said that the ordinance was
also in violation of section 1, article l.
of the institution, which said that all men
are created free and equal, and several
other sections of the federal and state con-
situations which he mentioned.
Judge Feagin said that he did not think |
the ordinance was any violation of the fed
eral or state constitutions, and that 1t was |
not class legislation. He said that the SUI |
preme court had decided that the sale of
liquors was purely a police regulation. |
Also that under the new charter which the |
city obtained from the last legislature that |
the council had supreme power over the |
saloons, and could close them up entirely |
If they saw fit
Should Arrest All Parties
But in regard to the evidence in the case,
the judge said that he did not think l.lat a |
case had been made out for the reason
stated He urged the officers next time |
they made an arrest of this nature to ar
rest at the same time the waiter who
served the drink, and all others who could |
throw any light on the affair or could help |
fix the responsibility on any one. During |
the trial the fact was brought out that the |
waiter who had served the beer at the time |
in question, disappeared from the restau-
rant within two hours after the affair hap |
pened and has not been seen since.