Evening journal., 1907-08-01
COURT WARMING
T0 SALOON MEN
Judge Cochran, in Dismiss.
ing Haggeriy Case. Sounds
Words Of Caution
REVIEWED THE EVIDENCE

AL lLULU I'LL LVIUNlNSL !
Judge Cochran IN city Court to-day,
dismissed the charges of selling I'M
toSioating liquors to minors against
William j Haegerty "a saloonkeepor att
Front and Jefferson streets He heard
the evidence In the case several days
ago, and then continued the hearing
until to-day to hear argument. but m
the meantime he reviewed the case and
looked up ac,ion takon in a similar
proceeding IN the county courts.
In dismlssing the charges to-day he
read am opinion. az the conclusion of
which ho said.
"Ihe ooai Wishes TO warn saloon-
Keepers however that they must not
ho satisfied I'M all cases with simply
the answer OF q young man concern
ing his age, but should exercise an the
reasonable care possible, under the cir
cumstances OF each case. TO hud out
ones age by means other than the
younc mans mere answer or dcclara-
uon'
Review Of Ha1aer.y's Case
I'm referring 20 the Hagsorty case,
tho courts opinion was as follows:
The case was first brought 10 the att
tention of the court by the arrest OF
three young men, two OF them Farren
and Proud being minors. Those young
men stated that they obtained liquor at
the saloon of the defendant, and the
court thereunon ordered his arrest. lie
was prosecuted on two charges; one
being for giving liquor TO the said Far
rem: and the other for selling liquor 20
the said Proud
There was no conflict IN the evidence
o on the part OF the State and the de-
j fence.
4 The Farrcn case was briefly as fol-
i. lows: The State proved that f'arrer
!, was minor and a nephew OF the de-
q fondant, and was In the pool room
where four men were playing pool
one. McKinsey an adult brought then
beer on a tray each time bringing foui
glasses. He did this until about II
O'Clock p m. when he left the placl
? on a telephone call and did notreturl
4 until about an hour later While h'
was absent Farren acted In his Eteal
b, andcarried the tray two or three time
i 10 the bar -Four beers were place
n thereon each time for the four players
Il AT the end OF each game WHOM pioyc
I, would order four beers, there general
y would be a few glasses with some bee
I'm them and Farren. knowing the poo
no players did not want Il. drank VIVA
~ was left In the glasses and In this wa
.a and without the knowledge Of the do
j fendant he got the liquor This evl
4 donco Of the state was corrohorated %
= the defence by five witnesses and wv
OF them. willis and Smallwood, testl
ned that farren. before he drank wha
was left in the glasses would wal
- across the pool room and peer int
the barroom. apparently to see II IN
defendant was looking, and sauste
that he was not would walk back an
quickly drink the liquor left In th
glasses. The defendants counsel urge
L thatthls incident showed clearly tha
the defendant not only did not Civ
F'arron LIQUOR but would not perm
N him to have any.
In view OF this uncontradicted ev
dence the case is dismissed.
The evidence In the Proud case
brief: The state proved that Prou
was minor and lived az Rising Su
He went 20 the bar alone and aske
for a drink. The defendant asked u
mt age and upon Proud answering that
la was 23 years Of age, he sold MN q
.ly |liouor. The state admitted that u
he attendants reputation for truth an
ln- veracitv was good. This evidence w
corroobrated on behalf OF the detenc
av ana the defendant testified that
M never saw Proud before and that
bo looked TO be 21 years Of age.
rF W.
pen,ivsill. mage 5S5, decided In the s.
''s nerior court OF New Castle county
ieo4 I'm a case similar 10 this the cou
said: Grubb. ]. The seller OF the hqu
~ is not absolutely bound to kno" y
'su age. that is. whether the purchaser
me under q years OF age, but he Is oou'
I'VE 10 use all reasonable means Tor asee
he tanning the fact, whether he Is una
ice the age Of 21 years at the time or {
lat alleged sale. II he did use all reaso
her able means necessary under the e.
en- onmstances 10 ascertain whether
IN. was under the age Of n or not a.
his honestly believed that he was and W
M deceived. then you may render We
dict OF not guilty"
THE defendant I'm that case was a
ouitted and an examination OF the e'
dence i'm that case shows that
zee greater degree Of care was exereis
ma Nv the defendant Of that case than
~ the defendant Of the present case.
~ seens therefore, that the defendant
nS mis- case did all that could be do
dy under the circui'ls''''''e7
his age.
Coal AMI H0RTF