Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1905-06-01
hAY TERN OF COURT.

When our report closed last Thursday,
counsel in the case Of Mary F. HUFF vs..
Heirs Of Gerard Wood were summing up
the case, which was given to the jury about
II o'clock, a verdict in favor Of the defend
ants was rendered at 2.30 p. m.
THE MUSzENBERGER CASE.
A good deal Of local interest centered in
this trial, and all the sessions were attended
by large audiences. The trial began about
II O'Clock a. N. on Thursday, and closed
late on Friday afternoon. j, Boyd Avis
and Thos Hall represented Mr.. Munzen-
berger and Pros eeutor Starr represented the
State
This case grew out Of an assault commit
ted on Pauline Munzenberger, defendants
oldest daughter, and Walter Picard a
young man Of this city, last March. The
Indictment embraced three counts, the first
for assault on Pauline in Feb'y, 1904, and
assault on Walter Picard in March, 1905,
and Pauline in March, 1905.
Andrew Munzenberger is huckster of
tropical and domestic fruits and keeps a
small store on Broad ST. adjoining Laub's
shoe store. Pauline, handsome Young
lady of 18 years was the store attendant;
young Picard was her admirer, but his at
tentions were objected to by Mr.. Mnnzen-
berger but they met notwithstanding
parental objections. On the night Of the
assault Pauline had taken music lesson
On leaving the house Of hel music instructor
Picard joined her; Munzenberger was watch
ing from the veranda Of an adjoining house
and the first Picard knew he received a knock
out blow. Munzenberger then took his
daughter home, and the complaint was that
he used more force than was justifyable or
necessary in so doing.
Pauline left her parents house that night
and refuses to return.
The verdict, rendered about eleven o'clock
on Saturday, found the defendant not guilty
of the assault Of 1904; guilty Of the assault
on Walter Picard and failed to agree as to
the assault on Pauline in March, 1905.
LICENSE COURT.
Counselor Summerill, representing the
Borough of Paulsboro, read resolution Of
the council Of that Borough requesting
the court to increase the license fee Of the
hotel of Abner Cleayer OF that borough
from $500 TO $500. The Werts law, the
counselor said in arguing for the increased
fee, fixes the minimum amount, but
leaves the maximum amount to the discre-
ion OF the court This hotel had the
largest bar OF any hotel in the county,
a four sided affair in the centre Of a
large room Public notoriety, he said,
placed the receipts of this bar for the II
months preylous to March 1904 at $40 per
day, and large increase ia population had
no doubt largely increased these receipts
J. Boyd Avis, representing the City of
Woodbury., read communication from the
city clerk directing him to appear before
the court to represent the city in the matter
of an increase of the license fees to the
Woodbury. hotels in accordance with resol-
ution adopted by City Council. This is
all haven he said, mo facts have been
presented to me, and l leave the question
with the court. =
Counselor F. B. Dayis, representing the
license applicants Of Woodbury., said the re-
solution bad no legal evidence to sustain
it, For Is or 20 years there has been no
material change in the population of this
city to warrant each an increase in the
license fee. It was incumbent on Council
to present legal evidence to sustain its con-
tention which these applicants could meet
and in the absence OF these facts it seemed
to him the court should take cognisance
of former conditions An increase OF $500
in the license fee means the interest on S16,
600 investment. and an equivalent reduc-
tion in the value Of these hotel plants, and
unless evidence is produced to that effect,
the request is an unreasonable one.
Mr. Watkins, representing Abner Cleaver,
the Paulsboro applicant, was next heard
He said the object Of the Werts high license
law was not to create revenue, but to pro-
vide places for public entertainment. If
Council wants revenue tine legislature has
provided for this in the act conferring pow
er to license saloons, but this sdoes not apply
to hotels. No legal power is given Council
to petition the court, and they do so sim
ply as individuals, and when they do go
outside the law action Oh snch recommenda-
tion would be set aside on certioari by the
Supreme Court. Council has no authority,
in legal standpoint, to tread on the pre-
negatives Of the court, and when they do so
their act should be reviewed as simply the
view Of individuals.
Mr.. summerili, replying to Mr. Watkins