The Washington times., 1908-07-23
LUNCHROOA MAN
FIGHTS IN COURT
Defendant Claims He Is
Not Proprietor, But
Manager.
QUESTIONS INTENT
OF HEALTH LAW
Charges Animosity on Part of In
spector-Two Owners Are
Fined 81 Each.

After several trials and convictions of
persons operating Unclean lunch rooms,
as result OF the crusade recently be-
gun, the hearing OF a similar charge
against the manager of the Maryland
Quick Lunch. in the Police Court this
morning. developed a stubborn resist
ance along technical lines.
When William Plumber, defendant.
was called, Attorney Peters questioned
the legality of holding Mr.. Plumber on
the ground that he was the manager
and not the proprietor Of the place in
volved. The police regulations, At
torney Peters claimed. provide that the
occupant of a given place must be
named The proprietor, or occupant.
of this place, he said, is John J. Moo
nan, who conducts and owns several
other places, and, therefore. the in
formation against Mr.. Plumber was
null and void.
Mr.. Peters asked a postponement Of
the case until this evening to gather
material supporting his contention that
Plumber is illegally held, and Judge
Aukum acceded 10 the request. Assist
ant District Attorney Pugh, in insisting
that the trial proceed. cited several in
stances in support Of his contention.
The arguments are TO be continued to-
night. and Judge Aukum will render
his decision
One Prosecuting Witness.
The government put but one witness
on the stand, Inspector Gallagher, who
Inspected the lunchroonl. and who. up
on evidence secured therefrom. swore
out the warrant. Six witnesses were
called by the defense
Mr. Gallagher swore that upon max
ing an investigation he found that the
lower portions Of the walls were filthy
and greasy. and that an apparatus in
the center Of the place, on which were
number Of pots, kettles, and other
cooking utensils. was in an unneces-
sarily unclean condition. His statement
TO the court was concise and sweeping
The most important claim, and one
which caused a stir in the crowded
court room, was that IN one of the
kitchen table drawers in which were
rags, he found vermin and other signs
Of filth He said that he called Man
ager Plumbers attention TO this and
that the latter said:
Wen, I must see that this is rene
died at once"
Il asked Mr.. Plumber what these
rags were used for" continued Gale
CHER, and he told me that they were
NSCt ~ wipe Oh the apparatus IN the
kitchen Just exactly what he meant
by the apparatus I am not certain, but
1 supposed he meant utensils and other
appurtenances Of the busienss-"
Charges Animosity. /
In the cross-examination of Gallagher
Attorney Peters said he would attempt
TO show that animosity prompted Mr.. |
Gallagher is make the Investigation and
take the action he did He also attempt |
ed to show that the Inspector was in |
competent and incapable Of judging the |
real meaning of cleanliness ia a lunch |
room, and that he made his inspection !
immediately after the rush supper hour |
when il was impossible for the scuI-
lions to have cleaned things.
MIR. Peters than raised the question /
as 10 the legality OF naming Plumber /
ana also whether 1t was in the province |
OF the regulations to apply the section !
covering the case to lunch rooms. He !
read that portion (section 6 b, in which |
II names the places to be governor, viz,
slaughter houses. markets, stalls, and
other places for tbs preparing Of food
products. This he said made IL inap-
plicable t. the conducting Of lunch |
rooms. HIS point was OveruIed and |
an exception noted.
Mr. Plumber was tn next witness
called. and upon the conclusion of his 4
direct and cross-examination, District II
Attorney -Pugh said that II was a sig II
nlhcant fact that he had neither denied II
the presence of the vermin in the rags
nor had his attorney asked MIN an. II
rectly concerning this important item. II
Upon being recalled he denied that the II
legher.