Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1899-06-08


sion. 1t was claimed that the station was
lily lighted and the platform insecure, and
as the young man stepped off the train it
started, and he was thrown between the
high platform and train, and instantly
killed.
The defendant CompaDy's witnesses tes-
titled that McIlyaine had alighted from
the train and was seen standing conversiDg
with his friends, on the platform, and that
he attempted to board the train again after
it had started away from the station.
After brief deliberatiOn the Jury returned
a verdict for the defendant company.
SATURDAY, June 3.
LICENSES
At 10 a. M last Saturday, Judge Jessup
announced his decision in the license
matters heard on Thursday previous
The application for license at AlmO-
nesson Park was refused, because 1t had
not been shown that conditions there were
different than when previously refused.
The application of VIM. Lickfeld, at
Glassboro. was granted, the fee being $3.50.
The Judge said the remonstrants had failed
to prove that the disorder complained of in
Glassboro proceeded from this place. He
were responsible for the order in and about
their places. The business requires the
exercise of more care than any other
business, nd knowledge of this fact made
it incumbent on hotel keepers to exercise
great care in that direction.
When the Judge was on the point of
delivering his decision on the Washington
Park application, D. w. Garrigues, of this
city, who represented the remonstrants,
announced that he desired to reopen the
hearing to take the testimony of witness
duly subrenaed, who, he declared, had
been enticed to leave the court room by
the Influence of Court Crier Brown.
Judge Jessup promptly informed Mr..
Garrigues that he had heard the case on
Thursday, and that the time had gone by
for the production of any moress evidence.
Continuing, Judge Jessup said he had
given the application, petitions and re-
monstrances his most careful consideration
and found, after a careful perusal of the
papers, that the signers, in point of num-
bers on the petitions for and against the
license, were about equal How well
they represent the sentiment of the county
the Court cannot say" added the Judge,
e but the objection raised by the remon-
strants is based on the laws under the
Inns and Taverns act while the appli-
cation is made under the new laW-that of
1899. These acts are widely different, the
act of 1899 having been passed for the
specific purpose of licensing corporations
The only relation the two acts bear to
each other is the manner of making the
application to the Court, which is in sub
stance that the application under the new
law must be made as far as applicable, to
conform to the provisions of the Ions and
Taverns act and the Court finds that the
applicant has met all the requirements of
law in his petition.
The Court has heard the case exhaus-
lively reviewed by both the applicant and
rem0nstrants, and its decision rests on the
merits of the case. As the law stood be-
fore the passage of the new act, it was
unlawful to sell from more than one bar,
and the Court so decided, and for that
violation of the law refused the license at
the October term of Court. The Legis-
lature has declared, by the passage of the
new and broader act, that this Court placed
the proper construction on the law, and
further, that the sale of liquors from any
other place than the building set forth in
the petition, was unlawful. The Legis-
lature, in the exercise of its functions, has
adopted its policy, and it is not for this
Court to question the wisdom of such a
policy, and grants the license petitioned
tor by the Delaware River Amusement
Company" fixing the fee at $3.50 tor each
of four bsrs-$100O.
PROTEST
Hardly had the Judge concluded his de-
cision before Mr.. Garrigues arose and
asked the Courts permission to file the
following protest against the action of the
Court in granting the license
" On behalf of nearly 100000 people.
who will mourn your act, including the
Great WomaD's Christian Temperance
Union of this county the many fathers
and mothers of this county, the many
farmers and mechanics of this county, the
$4,000 Baptists of Philadelphia and
vicinity, and the 10000 Methodists of
Philadelphia. / enter a solemn protest
against your action in granting license to
sell spurious and other intoxicating liquors
to the corporation, the Delaware River
Amusement Company, whose certificate of
incorporation upon its face shows fraudu-
lent intent, insufficient responsibility, in
cODgruities and technical blunders, and
some of the officers of which are confessed
law breakers, and thus nDfit to be trusted
with authority, and the constitutionality
of the law under which the application for
license was made, also being questionable, l
hereby give notice that the illegslity of
the granting Of license, under the circum-
stances, will be tested in the proper court
of the higher authority at the earliest
opportunity"
When Mr.. Garrigues bad finished read
ing the protest Judge Jessup displayed
astonish ment at such procedure, and in no
uncertain tones informed Mr.. Garrigues
that he would not permit minute of ouch
a protest to appear, as against the action of
the Court.
Continuing, Judge Jessup said; at is
not at all becoming for either the applicant
or the remonstrants to file protest against
the Courts action. The Court, said be,
" had, in the exercise of its discretion,
passed upon the case, and its decision, as
far as the Courts right to grant or refuse, is
not proper matter for protest, at least to
this Court.
THE license has been granted and it is
not for y0n to question the fairness of the
Courts action"
of criticising the Court and pressed the
acceptance of the protest, but Judge Jessup,
handing the paper back to him said =
The case has been heard on its merits
and the license granted, and no protest will
be received upon its action. If you van.
to test the legality of the Courts action
concluded the Judge, there is a course
laid down by law, but this paper will be
considered as nothing more than a mere
notice."
The application by Lincoln Park for
three bars was granted, the fee being $3.50
$3.50 for each of three bars.
WEDNESDAY, June z.
The case of Jos. G. Halsey, adml. VS..
Mary Richardson, was tried, and, on
motion of the plaintiff, a non suit was
entered. The life of Mr.. Richardson was
insured in a Mutual Company for 5000
After paying assessments for several years
they became burdensome, and DR.. Halsey
consented TO continue them, on certain
conditions equitable to both parties. After
paying for year, and a written agreement
as to the conditions being not execute d
Halsey discontinued payments, and third
party took them up and continued them
until the death of Richardson, about
year. DR.. Halsey's administrator asked
re. no nf ia