Evening journal., 1905-06-06
Gave a Decision Holding
Leon Reinstein, James
White and Charles Rex
for Upper Court for AL
legged Screen Viola
tiOn
Six Other Defendants,
Who Were Arraigned
Some Time Ago, Were
Dismissed of the
Opinion Of Municipal
Court Judge

Judge Edwin r. Cochran in City Court
oday handed down a decision in the
ases Of the nine saloonkeepers, charged
With violating the screen ordinance by
)bstructing the interior of their business
places from public view. After reviewing
the law on the subject he held that
prima facie case of a violation of the
Reinstein, No. q East Front street; James
statue had been made out against Leon
White. Front and Poplar streets ana
Charles Rex. of No. East Second street,
and held each of the defendants in 5000
bail for the next Court Of General Ses-
sions. The remaining defendants who
were dismissed are: Charles Hoelle,
Frank Fogan, Dennis Lucay John Nc
Cagn, Aaron Kiel and Patrick J. Mundy.
The Courts opinion was as follows;
COURTsi LENGTHY OPINION.
'rhe defendants are charged with the
violation Of section 4. chapter 555, vol 49,
laws Of Delaware. which is as follows:
Every person licensed under this act shall
keep his principal place Of business so as
TO be seen fully and easily by passers-by,
and shall not obstruct such view by
screens, blinds. inside shutters, frosted
kind or character.
% Any violation Of this section shall be
a misdemeanor and upon conviction
thereof shall forfeit his license, and pay
% hnc of not less than fifty dollars and
not more than one hundred dollars
I'm several Of the States we find sta
tute In force which provides that, during
the day and times when licensed saloons
are requird by law to be kept closed all
screens, curtains, blinds, etc, which
might prevent clear view Of the inter-
ior OF the premises from the outside shall
be removed, and that no such obstruc-
tions shall be maintained. This is known
as the Screen Law and is intended to
facilitate the detection of persons carry
ing on their business at prohibited times.
"There is no question Of intent involved
in the construction of our statue, the only
fact to be decided is whether the de-
PENDANTS prevent their principal place OF
business from being fully and easily seen
by passers-by by obstructing such vie"
by screens, blinds. inside-shutters' frost
ed glass. or any other device of whatever
kind or character. The words any Other
device as used in the statute. refers tc
devices similar in character to those
specified by the words of the statute, as
It is well-settled principal Of law that
where a statute makes an act punishable
by fine or imprisonment and specific
words are used, followed by genera
words, the general words must ordinarily
be confined to things of the same kind a:
those specified. Schultz VS.. cambridge
sS Ohio State 66S.
PROVISIONS OF STATUTE.
'.Under this construction the statute
prohibits the use of all such devices a.
beer signs or other advertising matter
pyramids Of bottles piled close together
profuse number of guard bars. window
plants, window partitions, and similar de
vices where the view is obstructed wheth
er used undeh the excuse Of advertising
decorations. or protection, but the word
of the statute cannot be held to cover
case where the Icensee keeps his bar il
the middle room in the building, TO whicl
entrance is usually had from the stree
by a door from the street into the from
room and thence by a door into the mid
die room but If screens or distractions Of
the windows of the front room which in
terfere with the view OF the door into tn
middle room this would be a violation O
the law, it is also held in Black on In
toxicating Liquors that board partition
between two rooms is not device with
in the meaning of the law which prohibit
blinds, screens, shades curtains or othe
devices to obscure the view of the inter
ior nor is the law violated by maintain