The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-08-20
HAYDEN DENIES IT
Probate Judge Refuses A. I'll.
OFT Liquor Permit.
Failed to Have Witness Swear
to Application.
WRITES AN OPINION.
Saws That the Druggists We're
Duly Warned.
Must Now Suffer for Not Exer-
cising Greater Care.

A. H. OFT, a druggist with his place
of business at No. 226 Kansas avenue
was denied today by r. F. Hayden
probate Judge, a renewal OF the per
init he has held to sell liquor WITHIN
the terms of the prohibitory law. III
announcing his decision refusing TO re-
new the permit Judge Hayden made an
emphatic statement that the druggists
ian the city must observe the pronlDl-
tory law to the letter in the handling
of liquors. If they do not their per-
mits will be revoked.
When the application of Mr.. OFT for
a renewal of his permit came up for
shearing before the probate judge yes
fterday afternoon, j. ]. Schenck' the
county attorney, was on hand to con-
Nest 1t. From the returns OFT had mace
purchase of liquor and beer 1t was
Eshown that these purchases had peSh
smade from the breweries making the
sbeer and from wholesale liquor people
outside the state Mr.. Schenck fired a
gbroadside of questions at Mr.. OFT anu
sxot him to admit that he had actually
purchased this beer and liquor through
local agents of breweries and liquor
EhoI1ses and that he had paid the money
Ito these agents in this city 1or II. MI.
Oft explained that making the state
Arients he had purchased this stun from
Hhe manufacturers ana nanolers oI ~
no eouivocate but had done what had
koeen customary in times past.
Mr.. OFT insisted that he had never
permitted liquor to be drunk run - on IA ms ms
tcordance with the law. Elmer Fey
ION. a patron of Otis, was called TO
kthe stand and among other things ne
Etestffied that on a few occasions ne
had obtained liquor at Otis by just
keirning the application blank Tor IL.
he was not sworn by Mr.. OFT that ne
needed the liquor for the purposes ne
set forth in the application, as is re-
sQuired by law.
In denying Mr.. Otis application Tor
a renewal Of his permit Judge Hayden
rendered quite a lengthy verbal oecis-
aon and among other things ne salo;
ssThe evidence adduced in this case
does not disclose any wilful VOCATION
of the law on the part of the appn-
cant. Nor does it show any Vlolatlon
that has been looked upon, heretofore,
as serious Most of the druggists IN
the city have been wilfully negligent IN
complying with the law. They nave
stood out and thought they were COM
plying with the law when they merely
REQUIRED applicants for liquor to sign
the application blanks without being
sw .5 question IN this case is not a
new one before me. 1t is not so long
ago that seven or eight druggists We're
illp before me for this very onense OF
failing to administer oaths to applicants
for. LIQUOR The evidence in those cases
was convincing that they had permitted
Eapplicants to have liquor by merely
signing the application blank Such
sr7rocedure is no more the making of an
AFFIDAVIT for liquor than if the applicant
name was signed to blank piece OF
paper.
ssIn this case at hand the evidence
shows from the testimony of this one
applicant who was on the stand, that
NE went in Otis place and got liquor
sby merely signing the application plank
and without being sworn. am inclined
to believe this witness testimony. He
appeared to be a good clean straightfor-
ward sort of man, although he was a
reluctant witness. 1 would believe him
much quicker than would any spotter
who might be sent to get evidence
druggists.
Now when these seven or eight drug
gists were up before for this same offense
1T appeared that they had been violating
the law innocently and / did not revoke
their permits. But at that time I issued
instructions to all the druggists in the
city that they should comply strictly
with the letter of the law in the sale OF
liquor and laid particular stress on the
fact that they must administer the oath
Ito all applicants for liquor. Mr.. OFT was
doing business in the city at that time.
NY notice to the druggists that they
must comply with the law was printed in
full in all of the newspapers and no
druggist could possibly be ignorant of 1t.
That notice was particular to state that
all applicants for liquor must be sworn.
sAnd stated emphatically at that time
that If this provision of the law as well
las all the other provisions were not
complied with. the druggists who were
negligent would lose their permits
stated that If the druggists were not
familiar with the terms of the law I'M
der which they might sell liquor that
they had better inform themselves.
''I dislike to act on what does not seem
to me to have been vicious violation of
the law, but Mr.. OFT and all the other
druggists were warned by me to what
would happen If they did not live up 10
the law and 1 do not feel that I ara
taking any undue advantage of Mr.. OFT
when find that 1 must deny his APP
plication for a renewal of his permit
under the circumstances"