Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1909-02-11
Continued from First page.

| cial nina IN the consideration Oh tnlS SUD-
| ject.While the question there discussed
was in relation to criminal responsibility
of principal for the act of his agent,
| yet the same argument will apply in sup
port of like rule to be adopted in an
| application to revoke a license. In this
case Judge Clark used the following lam
guage:-
'The licensee cannot put his clerks in
his shoes, give them the benefit of the
license issued to him upon the confidence
reposed in his moral character and not be
held responsible for their violations of
law in the scope of such employment. He
cannot set up his bar, receive the profits,
and abdicate his duties. The duty is
imposed upon him that the law shall not
be violated by sale to a minor. Here the
sale was to a minor The defendant put
it in the power and authority of the clerk
to sell. 1t was the defendants own risk
and peril tnat he was not present and
that he did not make the sale himself
| That his agent did not obey his instruc-
tons and negligently or purposely yio-
lated the law does not exculpate the de-
PENDANT The law has been violated. 1t
looks to tue man 1t authorized to sell, the
licensee-this defendant. The sale by the
clerk was in law a sale by the principal
and the violation of the law must be laid
to the defendant who gave the clerk the
means and authority to sell but did not
take proper care in selecting his agent or
use means sufficient to prevent Illegal
sales by him. 1t will not do for the de-
PENDANT to say that he authorized legal
sales and the clerk made illegal sales. The
law authorized the defendant to sell.
Whether his sales are legal or illegal is
at his peril and it can make no difference
whether he sells by his own hands or
through an agent whom he improperly Sc
lected or insufficfently supervised. The
violation of the law is at the door of the
man whom alone the law authorized to
SELL
The respondent further contends that
the acts of his agents in selling to minors,
were not in violation of the Bishops law,
because the bartenders took the precau-
tion in each instance to inquire of the
purchaser as to his age, and the sale was
made only upon the representation that
he was twenty -one years old; also in the
honest belief from the personal appear
ance of each boy and such representation
that none were minors.
Many of the boys to whom sales were
made, deny that any inquiry as to age, oc
Cured. In most, if not all, of the in
stances charged in the petitions and prov
en-, the testimony is in more or less con-
fiict upon this point.
1t will be observed that the Bishops
Law does not constitute, as an element of
the prohibited sale to minors, knowledge
ON the part of the seller, of the minority
of the purchaser. Neither is intent or pur-
pose to violate the law essential to the
commission of such offense. The unlawful
act is one of that class of cases, mala pro-
hibita, considered by the Court of Errors
in State VS.. Halstead,41 NIL. 552, under
the authority of which the commission of
the prohibited act constitutes the offense
without existence of any knowledge, pur
pose or intent. The brief of Mr.. Attorney
General Stockton printed with the re-
port of that case, contains many instances
of offenses of this character
After an exhaustive examination of the
authorities submitted by counsel for re-
spective parties, the law relative to this
question is found to be, that the seller is
bound to determine for himself, at his
peril, whether or not the purchaser is a
minor and if he sells to one, who is under
age, although he was actually ignorant
of the fact and he believed the purchaser
was of full age, such belief based upon a
mistake of fact is no defence.
Upon the question of the character of
diligence required on the part of the ven
dor to ascertain the age of vendee, it
has been held, in many cases, that it is
not sufficient to rely upon the representa-
lions of the minor.
II is clearly manifest from the evidence
that the bartenders of the respondent did
not exercise due diligence in making re-
quisite inquiry as to the ages of the boys
to whom they sold. They exhibited an
entire lack of appreciation as to the ex-
tent of and necessity for such inquiry,
and the care to be observed in selling to
persons who might be under age. A state
of mind which induced inquiry as to age,
indicated a doubt at least as to the pro-
priety of the sale, and further investiga-
ton, even after a Misrepresentation upon
this point became necessary in order to
excuse or justify the transaction with such
person.
In most instances the boys who purchas-
ed Intoxicating liquors at this establish
ment, appeared to be minors, at least such
an impression was created when they were
examined as witnesses, yet the bartenders
invariably testified to their own utmost
good faith in selling under the belief that
all were over age
1t is impossible, in view of the youthful
appearance of these customers, to reach
the conclusion that the bartenders in
making sales, acted in good faith and in
the honest belief that the boys were of
age, or that they, as agents of the re-
spondent, exercised due and proper dill
gence in making the necessary inquiry, in
order to justify the sales
The above statement is upon the as
sumption that the alleged inquiries, as to
age, were made as urged by the respond
emit Only two Of the boys, however, Miller
and Hughes, confessed to any misrepre-
sensations. In the case of Hughes, such
deceit was practiced the second time he
was permitted to buy.
While the Bishops Law declares that
l