Gloucester County Democrat. (Woodbury, N.J.) 1878-1932, 1909-02-11
DAVIS LICENSE REVOKED.
ALLEGATIONS OF PETITIONERS
,sALL SUSTAINED.
odse Cannot Be Re-Licensed for One
Year-The Opinion in Full.

Last Monday morning Judge Starr
filed his opinion in the famous Davis
License case, in which he finds that
the petitioners have sustained all al
legations, and orders the license re-
voked, and puts the costs on the de-
fendant. We publish the opinion in
full, as follows:
GLOUCESTER co. COMMON PLEAS
In the matter of the application
to revoke licenses issued to VIM.
F.. Davis
CHARLES E. SHEPPARD Esq,
J. BOYD AVIS, Esq,
Attorneys of Petitioners.
FRANCIS B. DAVIS, Esq,
A. H. SWACKHAMER, Esq,
Attorneys for Respondents.
Opinion.
STARR. Judge.
The petitions in this matter were filed
by Charles F. Repp and Albert T. Repp,
under the provisions of Chap. ia of the
Laws of 1906, known as the Bishops Bill
The acts complained of, which are al
legged in the petitions to have worked a
forfeiture of such licenses, are as follows
1. That the license holder sold and gave
intoxicating liquors to certain persons
specifically named, being minors, under
the age OF twenty y-one years, at times there
in designated.
2. That he sold and gave intoxicating
liquors to otner persons, being minors un-
der the age of twentyone years, whose
names are unknown upon dates therein
specified and at divers other times since
the issuing of the licenses
8. That he sold and furnished intoxi-
eating liquors to certain named persons
known in the neighborhood to be of con-
firmed incorporate habits, on days Nspeci-
fcally mentioned and on divers other days
since the licenses were granted.
4. That on specified dates and divers
other times within the same PERIOD he
sold and furnished intoxicating liqours to
certain named persons and others un-
known, who were visibly under the in
fiuence of intoxicating liquor
sss O. Fhat on dates stated. both specifically
and generally, he harbored certain named
individuals, who are alleged to be drunk
ards and disorderly persons in his said
hotel
g. That he permitted certain named per-
sons and others, being minors under the
age of twenty one, to lounge in and fre-
quent the licensed place on specific days
and other divers times, since the license
was granted.
Z. That the licensee kept a disorderly
house in which he permitted illegal prac-
tices of various kinds to be habitually
carried on, to the common nuisance of the
neighborhood.
First: The allegations with reference to
the sales to minors will be primarily con-
sidered.
A number of the boys, whose names are
mentioned in the petitions, were called as
witnesses, and testified to the purchase
over the bar, on different occasions of in
toxieating liquors, from the bartenders of
the respondent. These bartenders admit
making many of the sales in question. No
serious denial is advanced by the respon-
dent, as to the fact that some of the sales
at least, as charged in the petitions, were
made. 1t is found as a fact that all of the
boys to whom such sales were made, were
at those times under twenty one years of
age.
These being the undisputed facts, re-
spondent attempts to escape eulpability
by swearing, and in this he corroborated
by the bartenders, that specific instructions
were given, to the latter, not to sell minors
and that All sales so proven, occurred in
the absence of the proprietor, without his
knowledge, permission or consent, and in
violation of his express orders 1t also
appears by the testimony that with one
or two exceptions, the respondent was
not personally present when any of the
sales to minors were made, and that the
sales were without any express authority
or permission on his part.
This feature of the case will be disposed
a..
not in the personal presence of the pro-
prietor, and occurred in direct violation of
his express instructions, although it was
argued, by counsel for the petitioner with
much force, that in view of the respond
ent's testimony that he was continually in
and about the esta blishment. 1t was almost
impossible to beieyle that these occurrences
could have happened, so repeatedly, with
out some knowledge on his part, which
indicated that the conduct Of the agents
was the result of his permissiye sanction.
Upon the question Of the defendants
liability in such case we find the estab
lished principle to be- that in proceeding
of this character, the proprietor of ho-
tel is responsible for each and every vio-
lation by his agents. of the law prohibit
ing sales of intoxicants to minors no mat
ter II the safes occurred III MS apsence,
without his knowledge or consent, and in
direct violation of his instructions.
There are authorities which hold to the
contrary of this rule, but they refer in
variably to prosecutions started with the
purpose of holding the principal respon-
sible criminally for the act of his agents.
1t would seem that the. doctrine of ire
spondeat superior must of necessity, be
applied to a situation of this character.
In no other way can strict obedience, on
the part of license holder, with respect
to the laws regulating excise matters and
management of a licensed place, be en-
forced
The opinion of the Supreme Court Of
North Carolina in the case Of State vs..
Kittelle,s 11o N. C. $50, 15 L. R. A. 694,
accurate1v states the line Of reasoning