Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-03-21
POLICE COURT DoINGS.
liquor Dealers Fined Sl0 and Cost for Violation of Screen Law.

Ihaney, Chris Dunphy, David Sheehey land William Byron, liquor dealers, charged with violation of the screen law at their respective places of busi- |ness on Sunday, February 2S, occupied the attention of Judge Peasley at to- days session of the city court, which lasted until 12 o'clock nearly. The svi- |dence in the Mahaney case was sub mitted last week, but the decision was preserved until to-day in order that Judge Peasley might visit the saloon land examine it. t.. ..
 The case against Chris Dunphy, kwhose saloon is at 93O Bank street, was the first heard to-day. Sergeant Pagan, Officers Halpin and Walsh tes- |fified that on the Sunday in question the awning was down and the win dows on the side and rear were closed i with shutters, thus obStructing the ! light so that 1t was impossible to see more than few feet inside of the sa- aoon. The officers testified that the awning is generally up during week tdays, but down on Sundays. Chris Dunphy stated that the windows have 1 been closed with shutters since he started in business, that there was no special reason for the awning being down on the Sunday in question, that
  as far as he knew no business was done in his saloon on that day. Rob ert Walker, Thomas B. Walker, Attor- 3ney Clohessey and John Clohessey were willing to testify that they looked into 3fhe saloon from the sidewalk and could see all the way in, though the awning was down and the shutters were fast &ened. Decision was reserved until the Sheehey case was tried.
 In the Sheehey case, Sergeant Fa- 3Gan, Officers Hickey and Noonan testi- fled that on Sunday, February 2S, they stood on the sidewalk, stopped down and looked into the saloon. They oould see only as far as the bar. The shutters in the rear were closed and 1n the front the view was somewhat obstructed by a pile of bottles and by the curtains being pulled down two or three feet. In the rear the light is ob- etructed by a high board fence. The saloon is from five to eight feet from khe sidewalk and several feet below tbe level of the sidewalk. Sheriff William Gillette, Philip Hayden of Aver street, teamster; John J. Daw- son, the furniture dealer; John Me Evoy, grocer; Michael Loyett of Fuller street and James Moore, insurance agent, testified that they had stood with their faces up against Sheehey's window and had seen into the rear wall. The shutters were closed. In his arguments against conviction in the Dunphy and Sheehey cases, Attor- ney Kennedy stated that there had been no intent to violate the screen law, that the saloons on the Sunday in Question were just the same as on many Sundays previously. but there had never been any complaint. The men were charged with a criminal of fense and a criminal intent should therefore be shown. But the state had not shown such intent. If these shut terS or devices were wrong, why didn't the county commissioners or the prose cutting agent order them removed or altered? Attorney Kennedy said that any officer who could not see into the rear of Dunphy's saloon even though the awning was down and the shutters closed and the day dark, must be color blind. His eyesight must be very poor. Attorney Pierce stated that there was no doubt that the law was violated. 1t was not necessary, to show a criminal intent. What the sa- loon keepers must do is to leave their shutters open and their awnings up and remove all other devices for shut ting out the light on that day.
 In passing decision upon the cases Judge Peasley said: "A free and un- ubstructed view of the saloons mean that an officer passing along the side walk should be able to see clearly into those places. 1t does not mean that he should go up to the window, shade his eyes and peer into the places. Nhese men accused have succeeded in Dbstructing the view. But in all cases auere appears to be some excuse. Ma haney and Dunphy claim to have been burglarized, but the shutters in their places are much better protection against light than against burglars. l And all Of them guilty and impose the sninimum fine of $1O and costs upon each" An appeal was taken in each ease.
 Attorney Russell defended William Byron, who was charged with the same offense. The evidence in this case [ as given by Sergeant Pagan, Officers Halpin and Walsh was that shutters on the rear windows of the saloon obstructed the light and rem Aered an open view of the place i'm possible. It was shown by the de, fense that the shutters have been there since the place was built in 1888. A tine of $1O and costs was also imposed W 2A LlilS .Cd6G 4tAiu dh uppCoA was luhChs
 Permission was secured by Attorney Pierce to have the liquors seized or the premises of Mrs Elizabeth A. Law Hor. ITO East Main street, about two weeks ago, destroyed by Chief Egan Attorney Pierce stated that in all prob ability no warrant would be issued fol the arrest of Mrs Lawler.
 Yesterday Sergeant Blakeley and 8 several policemen paid an unexpected visit to the back kitchen of Govann Laudatis at 96 Charles street anG seized a number of boxes filled witt wines, gins, whiskies and brandies and also keg of beer. They were Taken to the police station, where they will remain until they are ordered de stroyed by the court. 1t is possible that a warrant may be issued for tht arrest Of Laudatis on a charge of hay dng liquors with intent to sell wfthou a license.
 N. B. Yamashira. a Japanese cook who came here about two weeks agt and secured a position at house ol