Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1903-02-20
The Crusade Against the Wine
Rooms In Des Moines Is a
Failure
RESTAURANTS SERVE LIQUOR
Judge Given Decides That it is No vi
olation of the MuIct Law to Serve
Wine in Restaurants Where it is Not
Sold, But Simply Furnished at Re.
quest of Patrons.

Des Moines, Feb 20.-The so-called
anti wine room crusade, which flat
tened out in the justice courts early
in the week, received its death blow
at the hands of Judge Given yesterday
when he directed verdicts for the de-
PENDANTS in the case of the state against
Lew Dotson and John Benson
Dotson runs saloon at 81 West
Third street and Benson has a lunch
room or so-called wine room on the
second floor of this building. Benson's
was the first place raided by Justice
Duncan and the police. A number
of men and women who were sitting
about the tables in this restaurant
and drinking were arrested. Dotson
and Benson were arrested on two
charges, one of keeping liquor contrary
to law and with intent to sell and the
other OF keeping and maintaining q
liquor nuisance. On the first charge
Dotson was discharged and Benson
fined 500 by Justice Iris, the testi-
mony being identical with that intro
duced before Judge Given yesterday
on the trial on the nuisance charge.
The testimony for the state showed
clearly that Dotson is the proprietor OF
the saloon, but failed to show that he
had to do with the restaurant on the
second floor. 1t also showed that Ben
son owned the restaurant. The wit
nesses testified that when they Went
into Benson's restaurant on the sec
ond floor they went up from the out
side and not thru the saloon, and that
there was no connection between it and
the saloon, that the only way to go
from the one to the other was to go
down into the street from the restaur-
ant and into the front door of the sal
oon, A number of witnesses testified
that liquor was served In the restaur-
ant, but all testified that it was always
required Of them that they give the
money for the liquors to Benson when
giving the order and that he went down
stairs and into the saloon to purchase
the liquor. There was no testimony
to show that sales were made from
stock kept in the restaurant or that
liquor was served there except when
purchased in the saloon.
The motion to direct was sustained as
to Dotson upon the conclusion of the
states testimony, but overruled as to
On the defense Benson showed
that he did not keep liquor in the place
and took the position that he acted as
agent for the patrons of the place. taxi
ing their money and going down stairs
to make the purchases. He showed that
he did not make a profit by so acting
and that he depended wholly upon the
meals served in the restaurant for the
support of his business. He maintained
that he had merely acted as agent for
his customers and went after liquor for
them as a matter of accommodation. He
testified that all purchases were made
by him for his patrons in the saloon and
during regular hours.
The motion to direct n verdict was re-
neewd and was promptly sustained.
Judge Given in his ruling held In
substance that 1t had not been shown
that sales were made outside of mulct
saloon conducted according to law and
that Benson had acted as agent for his
patrons, derived no profit from the tram
sactin and was not guilty of law viola-
ton.
In these cases the term wine room,"
as applied to the places it was sought to
close. is misnomer The places are not
in the same room with saloons, and are
not wine rooms as the term is generally
applied. Neither are they owned and
by parties carrying on saloon
businesses. They are restaurants or
lunch rooms conducted on second floors
or adjoining buildings, the entrances to
which are upon the street and not thru
saloons, and in which 1t has been the
custom for proprietors or walters to go
out after liquor for patrons, always in
sisting upon payment in advance for
the liquor, those serving 1T buying 1t in
the adjoining saloon.
Two other cases similar to this one
are pending. One is against B. f. Par
1er and S. Judd, who conducted similar
at East Second and
Grand avenue. and the other against
B. f. Parker and men named Adams
and Enbody who carried on similar
places at East First and Court avenue.
In view of the decision yesterday 1t is
doubtful If these cases will be prose-
cuted.