Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-08-01
SULLIVAN CASE AGAIN.

Fined-Judge Burpees Remarks. The most interesting liquor ease heard in the city court in many years was tried there this morning by Judge Burpee. This case charged Daniel Sul- livan with making false affidavit to the county commissioners in his application for liquor license, in swearing that certain door i'll his saloon at 64 Bridge street was "effectually closed" Attor- ney Russell appeared for the accused and filed form of acquittal. lie claimed that this case was putting Sul- livan on trial again for a complaint or which he was discharged a few days ago. This complaint was brought un- der the same statute as the first case was brought, 2765. Now, according to law. a person cannot be annoyed twice for the same transgression of the statutes Though the language used in this complaint and the first one diff fered somewhat, still 1t was the same complaint, and difference in language made no difference in the accusation. It was the same offense. MT Russell well knew that MT Pierce would ask certain questions about this door, ques- tions that he asked in the first case. And he knew what the witnesses for the state would testify to-
 Judge Burpee held that there was evidently three complaints merged in section 2,765. There Is marked diff ference in a door being open and a door being effectually closed, under the law. It is manifest what is intended fY, +l,n s1o4y +n A hat is ally closed means a door that cannot be opened without difficulty. Anyone who would swear that the door in question was effectually closed would swear falsely. The other case wanted proof that the door was open. Judge Bur pee accordingly overruled Mir RusselPs motion of acquittal and the case began. It was the first case of the kind ever heard in the local courts.
 Sergeant Blakely then testified to what he had stated in the first case as to how he found the door when he went to the saloon one Sunday some weeks ago and broke it in with the assistance of two or three policemen. Mir 4.us- sell objected to this evidence on the ground that it was irrelevant, but it was allowed, the court remarking that 1t would not go to prove the case nor show how the door was conditioned on November last when Mir Sullivan made the affidavit in question.
 MT Pierce entered the license applica- tion, but despite an objection 1t was al- lowed. Mir Pierce then stated he hav- ing been the notary who administered the affidavit to Mir Sullivan, that he would take the stand. He did so and MT Russell had him say that there are about 230 or 24O saloons in the city: that all the license applications are is sued in about week; that Sullivan ap- peared before him and took the usual oath as to the conditions surrounding his place of business. He could not say. however, positively that Sullivan made oath as charged, nor who took the application to get the usual signers to it. He admitted that sometimes the wholesalers got the signers, and he was positive that he never issued an appli- cation without also administering the customary oath.
 Sullivan then took the stand and tes- tified that he does not live in the prem ises in which the saloon is situated He never read the application and no one ever read it to him.. He could re- member what he swore to and refused to testify if his name on the applica- tion was signed by himself. He also refused to testify whether the oath was administered to him when he applied for the license.
 This refusal compelled MT Pierce to take the stand once more, and he said that he read the oath to MT Sullivan. This closed the case and Mr Russell, in his argument, said that notwithstand- ing his client was a saloon keeper. he was justly entitled to as much protec- tion by the law as any other man. Ev- erybody knows what is expected of a saloon keeper when he is arrested. Nothing for him to do but go up and settle. Tn this way MT Russell went on until the court reproved him, say ing that he was indirectly accusing the court of prejudice against certain class of business people, whereas the courts record would not justify his re- marks.
 MT Russell said he meant nothing of l the kind the court stated. Far, indeed, were such intentions from him. Tax | ing up his argument, he said that the words "effectually closed'' arh not in 1 the application and therefore MT Sulli- van could never have taken oath that | this door in question was so closed. Under this law Mir Pierce could bring proceedings against every liquor dealer almost; ignorance of the law excused no offense against it, but it must be 1 shown. there was intent to violate 1t. | Criminal intent must be shown. If l there was any action in this matter il l should have been the county commits
 sioners' duty to take it. not MT Pierce's
 Judge Burpee held there was a tech
 nical violation of che law, but 1t was
 not one deserving of all the penalties
 attached to the liquor laws nowadays
 He thought certificate of good char
 acter ought to be issued to Sullivan
 to save his license, and he so ordered
 This was not necessary, however, as the law which closes saloon on the l first violation and forbids the keeper | getting another license within a yeal
 or two, has been repealed. The min I imum fine of $10 and costs was i'm I posed. An appeal was taken under