The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1909-05-18
drunken men there. He had been or
Skaters premises.


neighbor of Mr.. Shaffer. He had live
there for nine years, working in Philadel
!, phia, but being at home every evening
He had never been annoyed by any noise
never saw any drunken men around, ant
never was in the place.
Frank Powers. anot-er neighbor O
Shaffer. testified as the two former wit
nesses did. On cross-examination he ad
mitted he had seen men on Skaters
premises, under the influence of liquor
and had seen them drinking. He bought
a half dozen bottles of beer in the place
one evening.
Charles E. Bowen's premises adjoin
Skaters establishment. He works in
Philadelphia, being home every evening
and two days a week. His house was al
least 800 yards from the bottling estab-
lishment, and he had never seen anything
wrong.
Edward Knecht lives close to Shaffer.
He had never had anything to annoy him.
In reply to question whether his wife
had complained about the place, he said:
"Only in general way; she is white
ribboner." He said he had often been In
Skaters, had bought beer there and
drank it in different places on the prem
ises. He said he had never seen any dis
order there "You do not think that pur-
chasing beer and drinking it at the place,
constitutes disorderR" was asked. mo
more than In any other saloon, was the
answer.
Several women testified that they lived
near the bottling establishment They
had never been in the place, and never
heard any disorder.
Thomas Wallace lives close to the bot
ting place. He had never seen anything
disorderly, nor heard any complaints. He
had been in the place and had bought
beer by the half-dozen bottles, and drank
it 'off of the licensed premises" Shaffer
had shown him where the license covered.
Shaffer had sold him beer.
William E. Hires. justice of the peace,
told of the sale of the property to Skaters
wife. The bottling establishment was
rented by the latter to her husband. The
squire had never seen any disorder on the
place. Several improvements had been
put on the premises by Shaffer.
Mrs Emma Shaffer, wife of the appli-
cant. said she owns the property where the
bottling place stands. She rents the lat
ter and the barn to her husband. There
had not been any disorder on her hus-
bands place, but drunken men had passed
through the property into the street.
The ''shed" where the drinking took place
was fitted up for man who worked for
Shaffer. There was stove and benches
In it, and bed. The man lived there.
Mrs. Shaffer denied that there had been
any disorder on the place. She said drink
ing went on In her place and that she did
not have any license. She did not take
steps to have the practice discontinued.
Joseph Shaffer. the applicant, took the
stand, and descubed his bottles, which he
claimed held more than pint each. He
had given his drivers orders not to sell
anything from the wagon except on orders
sent in in advance. He had seen liquor
drank but supposed it was beyond his
line, and nothing had been consumed on
his premises with his knowledge or con-
sent. There had meyer been any fighting
or disorder around the premises. Nobody
had ever been allowed to drink on the pre-
misses. He had not sold more than five
gallons at time, the highest quantity be-
ing between two and three cases of doz-
en- bottles each. He had no knowledge of
violations of the law by sales from the
wagons.
This concluded the case and counsel
summed up.
At the conclusion of the arguments of
the lawyers Judge Horner said that the
plea of counsel for the applicant that the
interests of Mr.. and Mrs. Shaffer should
be protected and they should not be made
to suffer pecuniary loss by having this
license refused was fair one, but that
there were other interests at stake. There
are many liquor dealers in this county
who try to respect the law, and to allow
any one to break the statutes and not
have any notice taken of the act was not
Just to the others. Mr.. Shaffer and his
employees had pleaded guilty to certain
acts and thereby had furnished the proof
of their wrongdoing. Even If the men
who sold Illegally from the wagons had
done so without the knowledge Of the
owner, the fact that he had continued
them in his employ was strange pro-
ceeding 1t is pretty well established
fact that the ordinary beer glass does not
contain pint of beer, but on the point
of having sold in quantities less than a
quart Mr.. Shaffer had testified that his
bottles were made to order and that two
of them contained at least quart. While
he might, therefore, overcome the charge
Of having sold less than quart, yet at
the sams time he had admitted selling
two to three cases at time, and the
quantity thus disposed of would exceed
the five gallons allowed to be sold by a
wholesale license. Some objection had
been entered to the evidence of the law
and order men, but it was conclusive that
Shaffer did what he ought not to have
done. Eliminate this testimony, however,
and take that of some of the witnesses
for the applicant, and 1t was apparent
that the law and order men had not great
ly exaggerated the occurrences. Judge
Horner said he believed the granting of
this license would have bad effect, and
he consequently refused to renew 1t.
Yesterday was the day fixed for hearing
the indictments against Burlington hete
keepers for the illegal sale of liquors.
Prosecutor Atkinson selected the case
against Frederick E. Pfeiffer as the one to
be tried first
Before proceeding further, Eckard p.
Budd, counsel for the hotel keepers,
moved that the indictment be quashed.
His grounds were that the indictment
did not state that the house complained of
was kept or maintained by Pfeiffer, or
that he had any connection Herewith.
Also that the indictment charges habit
ual selling contrary to law, which is
illegal, as a person cannot be charged
with several offences under one count, I'M
less the elements Of disorderly house
charge are intended and stated. The stat