Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-11-05
OPINIONS: rem DERED
Cases Passed. Upon by Court
Of Appeals
OF L0CAL INTEREST
POLICE COURT REVERSED IN
ToBIN VERSUS DISTRICT.
Appellant Convicted in Lower Tribunal
Of Violating Law-other APP
peals Considered.

peals Considered.
In the case of Edwin Tobin. plaintiff in
error, against the District OF Columbia the
Court Of Appeals, in an opinion written ny
Mr.. Justice Shepard. has reversed the 1udg-
ment Of Judge Kimball Of the Police Court.
Tobin, the keeper Of licensed bar room,
was convicted in the Police Court upon
charge of failing to have his bar room
closed Sunday, April last. 1t was claimed
by Tobin that when he entered his estab-
lishment from his residence next door and
procured a bottle Of beer the Sunday in
question the beverage was for his own use
The Court of Appeals holds that the evil
dence in the case was not sufficient to sup
port the conviction. Mr.. Justice Shepard,
in delivering the opinion, among other
things, said:
1T is provided among other things, in
section of the act Of March 3. 1898, that
80 On Sundays every bar room or other
place where intoxicating liquors are sold.
shall be kept closed and no Intoxicating IL
quors sold This language must be rea-
sonably construed. And so construed 1t is
not believed that it could have been the in
tention of Congress to deprive person and
his family of the ordinary privileges of
In9lT nOIne because d UdI
are sold happens to be located in the same
premises. Hannah agt. d. OF Z, IL APP
peals. 265. The purpose of the law is thus
stated in that case: The bar must be kept
closed, and the bar rOom-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 OBJ
served and enforced 1t is quite true also
that this prohibition cannot be evaded by
keeping open a room adjacent or nearby, to
which liquors can be carried from the par
room on Sunday to persons coming, or IN
vited to come there for the purpose or op-
tanning them. Sullivan agt. D. of c., 20 ap-s
peals. % Now it is necessary that there
should be an actual sale of liquor; the Of
fence Is complete if the opening OF the par
room Is such that the public may have
access to it. Lehman agt. D. of c., IL APP
peals, PIT.
Fails to Support Conviction.
Applying the law as stated in those de-
cisions.' continues Justice Shepard, to the
evidence in this case, we are OF the OPINION
that 1T is not sufficient to support the con-
viction. and that the last motion on behalf
of the defendant should therefore have
been granted. The hall by which all the
parties entered was necessary to the use
of the residence of which 1t was a part,
and led into the small middle room or hali
adjoining the billiard room on one side, ana
on tnc OtncT TIE hitCuSli, IA WihSh eiiS ~
of the defendant prepared the family meals
There is nothing to indicate that 1t was de-
vised also as a means or regular or occa-
sional access to the billiard room, ana
thence to the bar room. The defendant had
the right to enter his bar room. both for the
purpose Of extinguishing the light and for
procuring supplies for his own or his fam
ily's use. provided that in 80 doing he did
not furnish the public means Of access
thereto. Now, II the Chaconas brothers had
not entered the building it would be quite
clear that the act of the defendant In visit
ing the bar room and returning with bet
tie Of beer for his own use would not have
been violation OF the law. Could. then,
the unlimited and unexpected entry of these
men from the kitchen into the billiard room
convert his act into an offense? We think
not. The circumstances as they appeared
to the policeman, If unexplained, might
probably have been sfficient to sustain
conviction. But that Is not the case pre-
scented. They were reasonably explained by
witnesses. who were neither impeached nor
contradicted in any material particular.
Circumstances that may create strong
suspicion Of guilt are not sufficient to con-
Wet Of crime"
Tobin was represented by former United
States Senator John M. Thurston.
District Against Ball and Others.
In the case of the District of Columbia TO
the use Of Augusta M. Young, appellant,
against Charles B. Ball, Wilbur F. Nash
and Charles D. Cole, the Court of Appeals.
in an opinion written by Mr.. Justice Morris.
holds that If the appellant will file within
ten days a notice of willingness to amend
her declaration in accordance with the
views of the Court of Appeals the judgment
appealed from will be reversed and the
cause remanded for further proceedings.
Otherwise the Judgment will be affirmed
The suit was instituted by Augusta N.
Young upon the official bond of Charles B.
Ralf, late inspector of plumbing, for alleg-
ed neglect Of his official duty In regard to
the plum bling in certain houses, whereby
she claims to have been injured. According
to the Court of Appeals. while 1.-The use
PLAINTIFF is justified in law in putting the
Inspectors official bond in suit for neglect
of duty causing damage to her, and in using
the name of the District Of Columbia for
demurrable in not properly stating a good
cause Of action in the use plaintiff. But,
1t is added, at the same time it Is readily
inferrable from the declaration that such
cause Of action does or may exist
Lower Court Affirmed.
The Court of Appeals, in an opinion writ
ten by Mr.. Chief Justice Alvey, has af-
firnned the Judgment of the lower court in
the case of Bolton D. Stewart against the
Washington and Great Falls Electric Rail-
way Company.
to recover damages for injuries received,
alleged to have been caused by the negli-
gence Of the appellee. The appellant was
struck and run over by a moving car on the
road tracks of the appellee and thereby Sc
yerely injured while he was walking on the
railroad tracks. Upon the evidence pro-
duced at the trial the case was taken from
the jury by the instruction of the court.
,,,N1 hot h.