Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-05-10

EXPLAINS LIQUOR LAW
STATEMENT ISSUED BY PROSECU-
TOR JAMES L. PUGH.
Recent Opinion of Court of Appeals
Its Effect as Relating to
Hotels

Mr.. A. B. Duvall, the city solicitor, has
forwarded to the District Commissioners a
statement from Mr.. James L. Pugh, jr.,
in charge of prosecutions in the Police
Court, ON the subject of the liquor law as
1t now applies to hotels in the District.
The statement has been written with a
view of acquainting the police force with
the provisions of the liquor law and to re-
move erroneous impressions in reference to
the recent opinion of the Court of Appeals
in the case of Lehman.
The impression seems to prevail says
Mr.. Pugh, that this decision of the Court
of Appeals has changed the rulings of the
Police Court in respect to such cases. This
is mistake This decision simply sustains
the Police Court iii its rulings and in doing
so amplifies and CONSTITUTES the liquor law
as applying to hotels and leaves no room
to escape its plain mandates, and it's pro-
visions should be communicated and read to
the police in order that they may be able
to fully understand the law az the court
construes 1t, that they may the better see
that it is strictly observed.
1.-The sixth section of the liquor law says:
On Sunday every bar room and other place
where intoxicating liquors are sold, shall
be kept closed and no intoxicating liquor
Sold This is a total prohibition applyl -
to all bar rooms, but must be Interpreted
in the light of the provisiO which allows
the keeper Of any hotel or tavern having 4
license under the liquor law to sell liquor
on Sunday. Sales may be made:
First: To bona fide registered guess
Second: In the room Of such guest
Third: At the meals Of such guests.
Sales at Proprietor's Risk.
cit will be seen that the total prohibition
of the liquor law applying to all bar rooms
against Sunday sales Of liquors, and the
proviso extending privilege to hotels must
be interpreted strictly and the hotel keeper,
if he sells at all, does SO at his own peril
and in any case charging hotel keeper
with sale on Sunday, he, the hotel keep
err must justify by bringing himself within
the proviso which allows him to dispense
liquor on Sunday. An examination of that
proviso throws the burden of proof on him
to esta blish the fact:
First, that he sold 1t to bona f1de regis
tered guests; second, that he sold it to such
bona fide registered guests in their room,
or third, at their meals.
"It would of course, be very difficult for
me to outline the character or quantity of
testimony necessary to make a case, and
each transaction must be Interpreted by
the surrounding circumstances, keeping in
view the requirements of the law.
lit Is the bona fides that must control.
A person may register and be guest and
purchase liquor in his room or at his meals,
but if he Is not bona fide guest, the mere
registration. the service with a sandwich,
or even full meal, would not entitle him
to secure liquor in his room or at his meals.
Difference Defined.
'There is a difference between a bona fide
guest and guest who complies with all
| the requirements Of the law, thereby plac-
| ing himself Intentionally within it's provis-
ions to entitle hotel keeper to dispense
liquor to him in his room or at his meals,
but If that intention and his act in register
| ing is done simply to place himself in the
! position the law contemplates, he is not a
bona fide guest, and the hotel keeper sells
| to him at his peril and in clear violation
of the law.
Judge Kimbalrs ruling in the Lehman
| case was that If man is bona fide reg
| istered guest he can get liquor at his meals,
| or, If he desires, he can have it served in
| his rooms. The law does not allow a man
| to go into hotel and order few crackers
| and some cheese or a sandwich for the pur-
| pose Of getting drink or writing his name
| in a book for the purpose Of having liquor
served in his room, but he must be bona
| fide registered guest. 1t must be done in
good faith
"And in passing upon this ruling Of Judge
| Kimball the Court of Appeals says plainly:
| The court did not err in holding that there
must be actual bona fides or good faith in
| the transaction