The Washington times., 1903-11-05
DEALERS MAY ENTER
THEIR SALOONS SUNDAY
Important Decision by the
Court of Appeals.
oUASHED THE CONVICTION
Edward Tobin, Who Was Fined by
Judge Kimball, Is Relieved
of Sentence

An opinion has been handed down by
the Court of Appeals which is OF great
/ Importance to local liquor dealers.
! on June IL 1893. Edwin Tobin. who
! conducts barroom on d Street north
west, opposite City Hall, was tried by
Judge Kimball. of the Police Court, on
an information charging him with keep
ing open his barrOom on Sunday. April 8,
1905. He was tried by the court. with
out a jury. Tobin was convicted. and
/ sentenced to pay a fine Of $50 and in
default of the payment OF the fine to be
committed to the wOrkhOuse for sixty
! days.
His counsel excepted to the ruling Of
Judge Kimball and carried the case 10
the Court of Appeals. The opinion of
the Court of Appeals. written by Justice
Shepard. reverses the decision of the
Police Court, and holds that the evil
/ dence given in the Police Court was in
sufficient TO support q conviction.
The question involved in the case IS
whether a saloon keeper has the right
under the law to enter his saloon on
Sunday TO get liquor zor his own use.
Justice Shepard. in his opinion, in
part. says:
Must Close Bar.
1T is provided. among other things
in section 8 of the act of March 3. 1888.
that on Sundays every barroom
or other place where Intoxicating liquors
are sold shall be kept closed and no in
toxicating liquors sold This language
must be reasonably construed.
And so construed II is not believed
that II could have been the intention OF
Congress to deprive a person and his
family Of the ordinary privileges of
their home because a bar where liquors
are sold happens TO be located In the
same premises. Hannah VS.. d. c. y Ap-
peals. 265.
The purpose OF the law is thus stated
IN that case: The bar must be Aapt
closed. and the barroom-that Is, the
room devoted TO the uses Of the bar
must be kept closed against all who
would resort to such place to obtain
liquor on Sunday: and this requirement
must be strictly observed and enforced
1T is quite true also that this prohi-
bition cannot be evaded by keeping open
room adjacent or near by, to which
liquors can be carried from the barroom
on Sunday to persons ,>oming, or invit-
ed TO come there fol. the purpose Of
obtaining them. Sullis VS. District Of
Columbia 20 Appeals. %.
ofenses Explained.
Now. il is necessary that there should
be an actual sale OF liquor; the onense
Is complete If the opening of the bar
room IS such that the public may have
access to it. Lehman VS. District Of
Columbia. 10 Appeals III
Applying the law as stated in those
decisions" continues Justice Shepard.
ito the evidence in this case. we are Of
the opinion that It is not sufficient 10
support the conviction, and that the last
motion on behalf Of the defendant
should. therefore. have been granted
''The hal by which all the parties en-
tered was necessary to the use of the
/ residence Of which II was a part, and
led into the small middle room or hall
adjoining the billiard room on one side
and on the other the kitchen. in which
the wife OF the defendant prepared the
family meals.
There is nothing to indicate that it
was devised also as a means of regular
or occasional access to the billiard room,
and thence to the barroOm
Defendant Could Enter.
"The defendant had the right to enter
his barroom. both for the purpose OF
exunguishing the light and for procur-
/ ing supplies for his own or his family :
use. provided that IN 50 doing he did
not furnish the public means Of access
I thereto.
Now. If the Chaconas brothers had
! not entered the building, It would be
cutie clear that the act OF the de-
I fendant in visiting the barroom and
returning with a bottle OF beer for his
/ own use would not have been violation
/ OF the law
could then. the unlimited and unex-
! Dected entry OF these men from the
/ kitchen into the billiard-room convert
/ hts act into an offense2 We think not.
lie circumstances. as they appeared 10
/ the policeman. II unexplained, might
/ probably have been sufficient to sustain
/ q conviction. But ti:at is not the case
] presented. They we're reasonably ex.
planned b. witnesses. who were neither
( impeached nor contradicted in any ma
I terial particular.
| Circumstances that may create a
! strong suspicion of guilt are not suf-
l icient TO convict OF crime"
] Ex-senator John NJ Thurston an