Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1909-04-01

to Illegal purchases; a man by the
name of Garrison and l think one
other. David Warren, who was an
employee of the applicant testifes that
it was the custom in that hotel on
Saturday night to have free lunch
and to serve the drinks in the kitchen
along with that lunch; that this Gus
tom has prevailed in this hotel con-
tinuously under the present proprie-
torship and that he, in the performance
of his duty as servant Of the appli
cant, had on many occasions sold beer
in larger quantities than two bottles
to the patrons gathered together on
| those nights. He says with positive
ness of derai1 that he supplied one
half dozen bottles to William Sloan on
one occasion last year, and another
half dozen to a person by the name of
Isaac Cook the purchase by Sloan is
admitted by him, but the purchase by
Cook is denied by him. Warren also
testifies to having sold to George Pick
ering at various times, which fact
stands undisputed. 1t is his testimony
also that he was told by Hustled to
| give the beer sold in the kitchen to
at least one of the parties to whom he
had sold it, and that he sold to George
Pickering last summer whenever he
came after it. He declared that Wentz
would frequently come into the kitchen
and treat his customers; that although
he did not receive direct orders from
Wentz to sell more than a quart,
Wentz must have known of it. Refer
ring to this matter he says: I saw
Hustled do it and so I did it. I knew
nothing about the law, Mr.. Hustled
told me to do it and I did it. -
Judge Tuller also reviews the dis
order as testified to. AS to the testi-
mony OF the Law and Order Society
detectives the Court says: ''This testi-
mony should be taken with caution :"
| and he does not dwell upon it with
much emphasis.
The Court then reviews at consider
able length the testimony produced by
the applicant. The general testimony
presented as to the good character of
the house was not rebuttal to the
specific offenses alleged by the remon-
strants. The applicant must meet
| this.
The burden is upon him. In one or
! two instances where the bartender
does answer allegations sworn to by
the rem onstrants, he has not committed
the Court In fact the bartender
qualified himself by adding to his evil
dence to the best of my knowledge. !"
Speaking particularly of the Pugh case
Judge Tuller says:
''The testimony given as to the
character of Mr.. Pugh is corroborated
by the statement of the former pro-
prietor of the hotel His testimony is
to the effect that Pugh was common
drunkard and that he expressly warn
ed Mr. Wentz against selling to him
because he was man known to get
drunk on every occasion. Mr.. Wentz
contradicts Mr.. Jones in this particu-
lar and says that he sold only upon the
order of Mrs. Pugh. I am inclined to
| doubt the accurateness of this state.
ment He had been there two years in
a little settlement where every person
must have been known or practically
known to the other. Mrs. Pugh, the
wife of Frank Pugh. kept a boarding
house within 13O yards of the appli-
cant's place. Is it not reasonable to
suppose that the characteristics of this
man were known not only to Jones,
but to the applicant2 It is in effect
admitted by him when he says that he