New-York tribune., 1907-01-12
REAL MEAL OR NO DRINK.
appellate DirisiOn Aims at Raines
Lac Sdnduich.

Through decision of the Appellate Division OF
the Supreme Conrt handed down yesterday, the
status of the time honored Raines Law sand
wich is once more seriously called into question
While the court does not specifically hold that
a sandwich is not a meal. it does hold that
sandwich must be ordered in good faith as a
meal, or else no drink may legally be served
with it on Sundays. In effect. the court ruled
that drink must be an incident to a meal and
not the meal appenage of the drink
The before the court upon the ap-
plica ton of the State Commission OF Excise for
order to cancel the liquor tax certificate Of
Henrietta Martin, at No. 300 Seventh avenue
The Appellate Division overrules q decision Of
the lower court, which had denied the appca-
ton. and orders ii granted Testimony had
been given that excise agents had visited the
Martin place on a Sunday in June. 1906 and
had been served with drinks in room in the
rear of the bar. the only food in evidence being
some scraps of bread plates No meal had
been ordered
In the majority opinion of the court. written
by Justice Ingrsham, he says
To Justify the proprietor of a hotel in fur
nishing to transient guest liquor upon Sunday
the situation must be such to indicate TO a
person OF ordinary intelligence that the guest
had resorted to the establishment TO obtain In
good faith a meal and that the liquor he or
dered incident to that meal; not that the
object was to obtain liquor. ordering some
ticle OF food which not consumed to ac-
cOmplish that purpose IL is the obtaining of the
meal IN good faith which authorizes the hotel
keeper furnish liquor q part of that meal.
and not the ordering of a small portion OF food
for the purpose of coloring the transaction
that the liquor be obtained without the
meal.
Then the statute expressly requires that to
constitute a person a guest II must appear that
he resorted TO the hotel for the purpose OF OBJ
tanning a meal during the hours when meals
regularly served therein, and actually
orders and obtains at such time in good faith a
meal therein" The statute then requires GOOD
faith the part of the person who IS served
in hotel with liquor Sunday, and the CIR
cumStances must be such that the hotelkeeper IS
justified in assuming that person resorting TO
his esta blishment does so for the purpose Of OBJ
tanning in good faith a meal. Merely supply
ing an article Of food with the liquor that is
dered. standing alone does not justify the hotel
keeper in furnishing liquor.
Justice Laughlin, in a dissenting opinion, says
he agrees with Justice Ingraham in his con-
struction of the law but he thinks that the evi-
dence fairly sustains the finding that the law
was not violated.
The Appellate Divisions decision caused quite
a stir in the Tenderloin last night. The high
class restaurants took the decision calmly but
the saloonkeepers fear trouble next Sunday II
the police ordered to put literal construc-
ton the decision. The manager of q well
known Broadway restaurant said that he could
not undertake to create appetites for his GUS
TONER'S but believed that the sandwich consti-
tuted meal and generally ordered in good
faith.