Arizona republican., 1909-12-01

 IF LICENSE For Sale of Intoxicating Ii
 Quor to Minors THAlHE|MER HAYES CASES
The License Ordered Re voked in the Latter-For- mer Goes Over for Week Judge Kent Sounds a Warning to Saloon Men

FollOWinR nearing yesterday or the cases of the territory against Joseph Thalheimer. proprietor of the Central saloon and K. l.. Hayes. pro prietor of "Bob's Place" on the charge of selling liquor to minors, Judge Kent yesterday decided that the al legations had been sustained fully. and he directed an order to the board of supervisors for revocation of the license for ''Bobs Place and con tinued the matter with reference to the Central saloon for one week. In the meantime. the court said. the case would be looked into further and for reasons which appear later. it was in dicated that if further evidence of the violation of the law were not discover ed there might be no further order in relation to the Central saloon in the present case.
 These were not criminal actions. but were brought at the instigation of the ntiSaloon League under the statute providing for the revocation of licuor licenses.
 Three offenSes were charged against each of the defendants and they were committed on July and August 19 of this year. In one case it was shown that Hayes had met three boys enter ing his saloon as he was leaving it one day and that he knew that they were minors. On this occasion. as on a later one. they were served with liquor.
 It was also shown that the bar tender at the Central saloon had sold to the same boys and that when the older brother of two of them went to him and warned him to sell to them no more and left a printed notice which he had distributed at various saloons, the bartender told him to mind his own business. Thereupon tangible evidence that he was selling liquor to minors began to be collected. Ger tain minors were given a dollar and were sent into the Central saloon to see what they could buy; there were witnesses on hand to see what they did buy
 There was no struggle over the evidence. the defense relying mainly on the weakness of the law and the fact that the proprietors themselves
 
 the case of Mir. Thalheimer it was brought out that on the dates of the offenses he was in Europe
 The defendants were represented by Messrs. Armstrong and Howard and Judge Ainsworth. District Attorney Bullard conducted the cases for the territory. The district attorney had fortified himself with a multitude of decisions. q half dozen of which he had selected after twenty four hours solid work After the cases had been decided in his favor he remarked that his only grievance was that after hay ing devoted so much time and labor to the collection of the authorities the defense had refused to answer them and the court had declined to read them.
 One point suggested by Mir BulIard in his argument. and which was not sustained by the court, was that the law was mandatory, requiring the court to order the revocation of the license if it should be shown that the law lad been violated
 MT Howard was the chief speaker for the defense He believed that the authorities cited by the district at torney were not pertinent. They were state decisions. and in states the pow CT of police regulation is not restricted while in the territories it must be re stricted by the organic act
 The cases. he said. were quasi-crim- inal, and in such case the proprietor could not be punished for the acts of the agent At this point Judge Kent interrupted MT. Howard to say that the defendants were not on trial for the violation of the statute of the penal code prohibiting the sale of liquor to minors: if they had been charged under that statute the court could not order the revocation of their licenses until it had been shown that they had been convicted
 Mir. Howard began an argument up- on the theory of the district attorney that the court had no discretion in the matter of ordering the revocation of licenses. The court stated that he held to the view of Mir Howard and would rule that he had discretion. There was no further subject for argu- ment.
 Judge Ainsworth briefly addressed the court on the manner in which the had been brought. and he said that it would be possible to tfap any proprietor. if in no other way. by the bribery of his bartender to violate the law. Though under the doctrine of agency, the proprietor could not be punished by imprisonment or fine, more severe punishment than fine would be the revocation of his license
 In passing upon the case, Judge Kent said that he must hold that all the allegations of the complaints had been sustained. It was a remarkable thing that evidence of the violations in each case had been procured when it is usually so difficult to find evidence at all in cases of this kind. The crime of selling liquor to minors was