The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-05-04

so. not merely because it is place Of
sale of liquor. but because its nearness
to certain other places OF business, prop
crty or lawful personal resorts. causes
undue injury to thu business. property
or personal rights OF other citizens.
Now take the places ut which tho
county court Of this count has refused
TO grant license: Bells x Roads, N!irerai,
John II Whitlocli's S. a Z. Estes and +.
II. Bibbs.
At the Grst named place the evidence
was positive and conclusive that the sale
Of liquor at that particular piaee-in that
Northumberland the value CT property
was seriously detrimental to the business
OF numerous cit zeTs CT that n'iS.Ibo. hoca
produced unusual disorder and breaches
Of the peace: and intcrfcred WITH re-
ligicus worship in the church NEARBY.
This court, therefore. held that to be an
unsuitable place for the sale of liquor.
As to Mineral and Mr.. Whitlocks. tho
fullest judicial investigation satisfied tia
court that the sale of liquor in the neigh
borhood of the different mines in thaI
section resulted in actual. great and seri-
Gus loss to the business of those engaged
in mining 81 that section, as well as to
the business and property interests OF the
employees of the mines themselves ana
of other residents IN that community; also
endangered the lives of such employees
because OF the operation Of dangerous
machinery at such mines; and increasel
The disorder, breaches Of the peace and
Criminal trials in and coming from that
section.
AT MINERAL
ACTUAL experience of first denying
license at Mineral resulted in much good
along these lines. as was especially cv-
dent to me in our criminal docket ami
criminal expenses from that section and
also from the testimony introduced on
the trial OF the application OF Mr.. Whit
lock for license last Spring, a year ago.
The applications for license by Messrs.
Estes and Blbb We're no, contested last
Spring and were granted therefore, and
before the situation had been fully de-
seioped by the trial upon Mr.. Whitlock's
application. But for this Messrs. Estes
and Bibb would have had the same APP
piled to them last Spring that was ap
lied to Mr.. Whitlock. This Spring it has
been applied 10 them for the some rea-
sons.
1t is true that I have had some doubt,
whether the refusal to grant license In
the vicinity of the mines would be of
permanent benefit to the well being Of
that community, and am not fully satisfied
as yet. / believed, however, and still
believe. that il the majority in that COM
munity in favor Of the SUPPRESSION Of the
sale of liquor is sufficiently large and they,
continue to maintain their public spirit
and interest in this question. the law
would and will be enforced, and il So it
would and Will be a benefit.
This / felt and feel was and is in the
hands of the people OF that community.
They may may not keep up this pub
lie spirit and see that the law against
the Illicit sales Of liquor is enforced. The
evidence, showing. however, that the
sale of liquor in that vicinity was the
cause of the INJURIES I have mentioned,
until I am satisfied by actual trial and
experience of the result of non-granting
Of license therein, | am not satisfied
that such vicinity is suitable and apprc-
pirate for the sale of liquor hence l
denied the licenses asked for in that
section which j have mentioned
We come now to consider the partcu-
lar place brought in question by the
application in the case at bar.
Do the same conditions prevail at
Louisa as in the mining section and at
Bells x Roads? Has the testimony
shown that there is any peculiarly in
furious results following from the sale
of liquor at Louisa as distinguished from
any other place which is q public place?
THE TESTIMONY.
The great bulk of the testimony along
this line is to the effect merely of the
general evil results OF the sale of liquor
anywhere or at any public place, falling
short of showing any peculiar actual,
material injury resulting to the business,
property or personal rights OF any one
from the sale OF liquor at the proposed
place at Louisa-certainly of any general
or considerable injurious effects OF which
the law takes cognizance. 1t IS true
that there is testimony of witnesses tend
ing to show that the sale of liquor at
7 p.IiSa iS a n n a the mining DlSl-
ness CT the county. Let us see what
this testimony amounted to. It was to
the effect that some 500 men are employ
ed in these mines. That some . DOT
cent. are absent from their business on
Saturdays and Mondays and particularly
upon county court-days. rms would
aggregate some 200 men absent. 1t is
claimed by some of the witnesses that
this is due to the sale of liquor at Louisa
Now in the light of all the testimony
this is manfestly an error. Captain
Eoyd NJ Smith while in sparring with
counsel on cross examination stated that
he attributed 80 2-3 per cent OF the ao-
scnce to the sale Of liquor at Louisa.
did not in fact testify to seeing as many
as twenty men come to Louisa except
on one occasion--he other times he
mentioned there We're only a small num-
Der who came. Mr.. Sampson Smith tes-
tilted only TO a small number coming at
u time. MIR. 15ickers testified 10 the TACT
that on an average only some tour or
five came per week. And II IS q mani
fest physical fact that whatever may
be the absence of the employees from
duty on the days named not over four
or five on the average have been to
Louisa on these days. Allowing Tor the
iinuor that these men would get III bot
ties for others, it is not probable That
over j per cent. or - men at these mines
are kept from their duties on the days
named by the liquor they get from
Louisa. The residue. or 80 per cent
must be attributed so far as 1t IS at
tributable to liquor, to liquor drinking
and supplies from elsewhere. And as TO
the getting of whiske: in packages by
these employees by 'phoning or Writing iot
it-,hay could get the liquor in this way
as readily from Gordonsyi!le Charlottes-
vile or Richmond, as from Louisa, so
that the stopping the sale at Louisa
would not prevent it