Windham County reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1901-1906, 1903-11-27
Mr.. ROGERS SHOWS CAUSE
WHY HIS LICENSE SHOULD NOT
BE REVOKED
Hearing Before the Dummerston Ii
cense Commissioners in Townshend
Hall Monday-Nothne New in the
Way of Evidence Brought to Light.


| Fiske G. Rogers, proprietor of Rog-
ers Inn in West Dummerston, ap-
peared before the Dummerston license
! commissioners Monday afternoon ir
; response to a notice summoning him
to show cause why his license should
not be revoked for selling liquor tc
minors and on Sunday. The hearing
was the outcome of a constables' com
plaint signed by Arthur Laughton and
Charles Taft, which the commission
ers received several weeks ago In
the complaint it was alleged that Mr.
Rogers had sold to minors and on Sun
day. The commissioners investigated
the matter thoroughly at that time and
decided that the evidence did not war
rant their summoning Mr. Rogers to
any formal hearing. This decision
seemed to satisfy most of the people in
Dummerston, but a few. either from
spite or ingrained prohibition prin-
cipes were decidedly wroth that no
action was taken. At the regular
quarterly meeting of the commission
ers short time ago Frank E. Barber,
who was recently admitted to the bar,
appeared and demanded that the mat
ter be investigated more thoroughly
and threatened that if this was not
done by the commissioners themselves
the states attorney would take it up.
! In fact Mr.. Schwenk did receive a
complaint from certain Dummerston
! people but before he was ready to pro-
ceed the commissioners decided to hold
/ a public hearing and let all the facts
! in the matter come to light
The hearing began in Townshend
hall Monday afternoon at o'clock be-
fore a large gathering of townspeople
both men and women. District At
torney James L. Martin appeared for
the commissioners and the town of
Dummerston, Attorney John E. Gale
represented Mr.. Rogers, and Lawyer
Fl. G. Barber stated that he appeared
for the complainants. The matter of
selling on Sunday was first taken up
and the initial witness was barber
employed in Oakess shop. who stated
that sometime last June he had lunch
at Rogers Inn, bought a glass of beer
with it. and also pint of wine which
he carried away. William Bemis, the
second Witness testified that on two
Sundays in August he had lunch at the
inn and bought pint of rum. Nell
son Evans the third witness, said that
he never had been in the hotel, nor had
any recollection of ever getting anyone
to purchase liquor there for him on
Sunday. Frank Dodge stated that he
once bought a lunch and glass of
ale there, and on another Sunday at
tempted to buy a bottle OF liquor but
was refused.
Relative to the sales to minors Frank
Baldwin, who viii be of age in Decem-
Der. testified that he had bought liquor
there until Mr.. Rogers had found out
that he was a minor. After that he
had not been allowed to loiter about the
hotel. Baldwin is over six feet tall.
weighs somewhere in the nefghborhood
of 225 pounds, has a younger brother
that is married, and has been employed
at the quarry for four years, always
drawing his own pay and signing his
own contracts. Fred Rogers. a minor
son of Mr.. Rogers, was the next wit
ness He said that his father had
refused to sell him any liquor so he
got two young Connarn girls, his
wifes sisters, to go into the dining
room of the hotel on the second floor
when he knew the regular help We're
downstairs, to put an empty pitcher |
and a dime on the dumb waiter lead |
ing into the bar room, and then to call |
the word ale" through the speaking |
tube In this way young Rogers said |
that ale had been procured several |
times until his father found out about T
the matter when it was stopped at |
once. The Connarn girls testified to
the same story as Mr.. Rogers
.1a1I In1
bv the commissioners but Mr.. Gale,
for Mr.. Rogers, had Charles
Taft put on the stand. Mr.. Taft was
one of the complainants and up to the
day of the hearing was a constable in
the town of Dummerston. At that
time one of the bondsmen withdrew his
bond and Mr. Taft was compelled to
hand his resignation to the board of
selectmen. The erstwhile constable
was asked by Mr. Gale if he had not
been watching Mr.. Rogers very close
" in an attempt to discover any viola
ton of the law Mr.. Taft replied that
ne had Mr.. Gale then inquired if
his close supervision was not due to
a grudge the witness had against Mr.
Rogers The witness refused to an
swer. Mr.. Gale asked Taft if he had
not built a barn within a few feet of
Rogers Inn, He said he had. Mr..
Sale then wanted to know if the barn
1ad not been erected out of spite. The
witness refused to answer. In re-
gard to seeing sales to minors Mr..
taft stated that he had seen Frank
Baldwin buy liquor at the hotel, and
hat once while shingling his barn he
honght he had seen Fred Rogers hand
money over the bar.
Mr. Martin asked Mr.. Taft if he was
me of the complainants in the matter
md he said yes. Mr.. Martin then
wanted to know if Mr.. Taft was con-
ributing toward the expenses of Law
rer Barber, who represented himself
IS counsel for the complainants." The
witness answered no, which brought
rom Mr.. Martin the remark that either
he witness was perjuring himself or
hat Barber was prevaricating.
Fiske G. Rogers next took the stand.
Relative to his Sunday sales he said
hat previous to Oct. % he had an un-
lerstanding with the commissioners
hat under the terms of his license he
ould sell to guests on Sundays wheth-
r or not it was to be drunk on the
,remises, Sec. "a of the law providing
or mo sale on Sundays except to
uests who resort there for food and
odging" At that time he and the
conferred with the
tate's attorney and were given to un-
erstand that this section meant that
auor could be sold on Sunday only
18th meals, not to be drunk off the
renises After that Mr.. Rogers said