Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1909-02-04
THE DAVIS LICENSE CASE.

The trial of this remarkable case,
that has claimed the attention of
our courts for eight full days, was
! closed last Saturday morning, and
then the court took a recess till
Tue sday morning, when the respec-
( tive counsel summed up. Judge
Starr is sitting as Judge and jury.
This the first case of the kind ever
tried in this State. The real prose-
cutors are the two churches of
Glassboro, yet the prosecutors of
record are the Repp Bros, Charles
and Albert, the statute requiring
that two citizens make safiidayit to
the state of facts on which revoca-
tion is based.
During the legal argument Tuesday
the Court House was packed, citizens
of Glassboro, who have followed
the case from the beginning pre-
dominating.
After the Grand Jury had retired
had left, the argument in this case
was opened by Senator Avis, for the
prosecutors. In opening Me said
this action was brought to have the
4 court revoke two lcenses( whole
! sale and retaiD held by VIM. f.
DdNlS OL tu0 GldSSUOIO nOtCAsi DC-
cause of violations of the New Jer-
sey liquor laws-specifically for SELL
ing liquor to minors, allowing mi
nors to 1oiter about the bar room,
keeping a disorderly house. This is
civil proceeding. he said, not a
criminal proceeding to punish Mr..
Davis, but to determine whether Mr..
\ Davis is a proper person to keep an
inn or tavern in the State of New
Jersey.
A revocation of license is not
punishment. but withdrawal of the
license; it is not necessary TO state
the names of minors to whom the
liquors were sold, only the time of
sale; and cited cases to sustain this
view. | this case, some specific
cases have been proven, some OF
them admitted by the defendant and
his bartenders. Ignorance of the
age of the minor is not defense to
the sale to a minor" he quoted,
, merely asking the minor is not SUI
fficient inquiry into the age to excuse
li a sale. In this case there is no
question we have proven the contin-
/, ued sale to minors.
Il In a civil proceeding the icen-
/ see is responsible for the act of a bar
} tender or agent in the sale to nil
nors.
All decisions hold that the pro-
prietor is responsible for the acts of
his bartender, in civil suit to revoke,
+, and he does not see how this re-
| spondent can excuse himself from
, the acts of his bartenders. 1t is
proven that this defendants bar
tenders sold to minor in the day
time and at night. To say that Mr..
Davis is not to be held responsible
is to say that a licensee may hide
behind his bartenders, and say gave
orders against the sale to minors.
The sale of liquor is of such nature
that on general policy the court has
right to recognize the principle
: that hote-keeper cannot hide be-
: hind his bartenders and say I am
not responsible. On the subject of
: selling to habitual drunkards, Mr.,
, Avis said:
The man who spends his time at
the hotel and drinks whenever oppor-
tunity offers, and goes to the hotel
when not employed, and drinks till
} intoxicated, is a man of Incorporate
habits.
We have proven, he said, that there
|
who have drunk liquor so long and
in such quantity that it has become
the ruling passion of their lives.
The evidence produced is this case
he declared proves that this case
comes within the law that makes it
a disorderly house.
If the license system is to con-
! tinue in the State, he said, it must
be continued in accordance with the
law. If there was ever a condition
he exclaimed, where the license could
be revoked in this State this is one
of them. He charged that Mr.. Davis
had promoted drunkenness in that
community in violation of law, and
for the good of that community, the
county and State, the license in his
name should be revoked
At 1.30 F. B. Davis, Esq, of coun-
sci for respondent, opened the case
for the defendant, and reviewed the
testimony of persons set out in the
petition-and asserted that none of
the sales were made by Mr.. Davis or
in his presence, and quoted case
where the proprietor was declared
not guilty where sold by his agent
in his absence and against his orders.
He contended that inasmuch as Davis
was not cognizant of the sales to
minors, and had given his agents
Iexplicit orders against it, he could
not be held responsible for their il
legal acts.
Mr.. Davis stigmatized Mr.. Avis
TRADE against the hotel as unwar-
ranted by the testimony of leading
citizens of the town, many of them
being of the opinion that it was the
best kept hotel in the county. Mr..
Davis reviewed the entire scope of
the testimony, and concluded that all
the testimony of the plaintiffs was
/ positively denied by testimony of the
/ defendants witnesses. AS to the
testimony of the Law and Order
agents, he said, the general testi-
mony of defendants witnesses dis
! proves this.
Mr.. Swackhamer followed Mr..
Davis for the respondent. He said
~, WI III