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


alleged. The petition specifies sales to
Andrew Fisher and Oscar Harperson speci-
fc days and other times since in the grant
ing Of the licenses. Under these circum-
| stances we fl nd the charges in the petition
with reference to sales of Miller, Fisher and
Harper are established by the testimony.
If the rule contendeG for by respondent,
requiring that the proof correspond, with
accuracy, to the dates alleged In the petit
ton, is adopted, the charges of sales to
Morrison anu Beebee have not been es-
tablished. 1t would seem, however, that
no more certainty of this should be re-
quired in a proceeding of this character,
than in an ordinary declaration, in a com
mon law action, or an Indictment, in both
of which it is not necessary to prove actual
dates specified, unless time is of the es-
sence of the case. However, we deem 1t
unnecessary to decide this question, in
view of the hiding that sales to three of
the persons named in the petitions have
been sufficiently proven.
The petitions contained general allega-
ton of sales to minors whose names We're
unknown, covering the period from the
granting of the licenses. Under this gen
eral clause, testimony with reference to
sales to other persons than those specifi-
cally named, was admitted and respondent
given an opportunity to meet such proof,
as if the names had been inserted in the
petitions. Under this ruling. the petition
ers offered testimony to show sales to Nor
man Worrell, Daniel e. Graves and Will
lam Hughes. The testimony establishes
sales to these boys,who were under twenty
one years. 1t would seem from the follow
ing authorities, that in petition of this
character, it is not necessary to state the
names of the minors to whom intoxicants
were Sold
Lillienfeld VS.. Com. % Va. SIS.
Com. VS.. Bearse, $50 Mass. $50.
State VS.. Bielhy, 21 Wis. 2O4.
Our impression, however under the sta
tute regulating this proceeding, is that
there should be aa disclosure, in the pc
tition, of the names of the minors or
something to show that the names were
unknown. In view of the conclusion reach
ed in relation to the sales to FISHER, Har-
per and Miller, it is unnecessary to decide
the question as to the effect of the sales
proven to have been made to the other
minors.
Third: The petitioners have not proven
that the persons named in the petitions
were known, in the community to be of
confirmed Incorporate habits The evil
deRce upon this feature of the case is
extremely conflicting and we are not salts
fed that the petitioners have successfully
carried the burden imposed upon them, by
the statute, and established, by a pre-
ponderance of testimony. that the persons
thus named, were of the character des-
cribed.
1t is true that a number of witnesses
testified that such persons. or many of
them, were so known in the community,
as would seem to conform to the statu-
tory requirements, but upon cross examin
alton, most of these witnesses did not dis
play such an intelligent understanding of
the characteristics which must be present,
in order to establish such a reputation. We
are not willing, for that reason, to find
that the allegations of the petitioners in
this regard have been proven.
Testimony to support the remaining al
legations, was, in the MAN, given by
agents of the Law and Order Society, who
were employed especially to investigate
the conditions existing at the hotel in
question. Their testimony, if it is to be
believed establishes condition of af-
fairs which would justify the Court in
finding that the charges of keeping a dis
orderly house and selling to persons Wis
IDLY under the influence of liquor, were
abundantly proved.
In many instances the evidence of speci-
fc acts and scenes of disorder, given by
these agents, was directly contradicted by
the proprietor, his bartenders and Others
Furthermore, the respondent called num-
Der of witnesses who were in the habit OF
visiting the hotel more or less frequently,
and who, it was claimed by the respondent
would have noticed the misconduct thus
described, if it, in fact had occurred
These witnesses testified generally that
they did not observe any disorderly con-
duct and no such occurrences happened to
their knowledge. The testimony of some
of the witnesses, in relation to these mat
tiers cannot, in many instances, be recon
ciled. Either one side or the other is
mistaken or wilfully misrepresenting the
true conditions of affairs or endeavoring
to create wrong impressions.
In addition to the evidence of the agents
of the Law and Order Society, Dr. Ped
rick, Dr. Iszard, George Higgins and Frank
Steelman, all testified to acts of noise, dis
order and the presence of intoxicated and
disorderly persons in and around the ho-
tel
In view of the general conditions which
seem to have existed in and around the
hotel, and of the many specific acts of
disorder and violation of law testified to,
with particularly of time, place, person
and circumstance, the testimony of these
agents cannot be ignored and given no
consideration. In many cases the acts de-
scribed by them were also shown to have
existance by the testimony of other persons
called to testify on both sides of the case.
After careful and impartial considera-
ton of all the evidence. an unbiased mind
must of necessity reach the conclusion
that this hotel was not conducted in accor-
dance with either the letter or the spirit of
the laws Of the State, with relation to the
granting of licenses and the selling of in
toxicating liquor.
The testimony discloses a situation Of