The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1910-03-31
CLAIM EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT
Tweedledee and Tweedledu1n' Farce
Comedy of Attorneys asad Witnesses
Goes for Three Hours Without
Bringing Out Facts.

Frank S. Symmonds and the Keno
sha Civic Federation fought another
losing fight before the common coun-
ell on Tuesday night when the coun-
Gil by vote of to again refused
to revoke the license of Peter T.
Breen at l01 Main street. A majority
of the council held that the evidence
produced was not sufficient to show
that M. Balzer, the alleged agent of
Breen, had sold liquor to Fred Met
ten, minor.
There was no change Of front on
the part of the aldermen and after
three hours of farce comedy with the
attorneys and the witnesses taking the
principal parts the matter got to a
vote when Alderman Simons moved
to revoke the license. Alderman
Pirsch promptly amended demanding
that the complaint be dismissed by
the council on the grounds that the
action. The amendment was carried
by the following vote: Ayes, Alder
men Pirsch, O'Brien, George Wade,
Stemm, Willems, Werner, John Wade
and Saftig.' Nays, Aldermen Marlatt,
Timme, Simons, Hegeman, Swift and
Higley. The argument was too strong
for Alderman Harbaugh who had prev
iously voted to revoke the license and
he became SO i'll during the meeting
that it was necessary for him to be
excused for the evening.
Attorney Peter Fisher appeared for
the defendant in the action and At
torney A. E. Buckmaster appeared as
the counsel for the complainant. There
was regular examination of witnesses
and arguments were made by the at
torneys for the two parties, Both
attorneys in their arguments went far
from the points at issue and while
one gave the usual defense Of the sa-
loon business and the men in it the
other one pointed out the fact that
the action of the council was being
closely watched by people interested
in the morals of the \community.
The evidence brought out the fact
that Balzer was operating the saloon
independent of Breen, but that at the
same time and under the same license
Breen as agent for the Brand Brew
ing Company was conducting the
wholesale business Of the company
under the license The attorney for
the defendant insisted vigorously that
there was no agreement which could
be construed to imply agency on the
part of Balzer, but Breen kicked over
the argument by admitting that there
was but one license for the place and
that he had done business under this
license right along. Balzer failed to
remember many facts in connection
with the case. He could not tell
when he went into the Breen saloon
and was decidedly hazy on other sub
iects. The feature of the defense
was the production of an alleged per-
nit which had been given by Henry
Metten, the father of the minor, Fred
Metten. It was decidedly unusual
piece of evidence. 1t read as fol-
lows:
January l, 1910.
81 hereby give the privilege to
Matthias Balzer, 1O1 Main street, Ke-
nosha, Wisconsin, the privilege of
selling or giving my boy, Freddie Met
ten, drink at any time or place in
said city of Kenosha.
Henry Metten."
While this permit was not in any
way pertinent to the question at issue
some interesting facts were brought
out in regard to it. It bore the date
of January 1, 1909, but Metten when
he took the stand declared that he
had signed it in September. He stat
ed that.it was written by the son of
Balzer. Fred Metten, who was the
minor, declared that he had never seen
the permit and had never known of its
existence. 1t was apparent from the
evidence that the father had given the
son this little surprise by fling it
with the saloon man. The permit
struck another snag when it was
found that there was some doubt as
to whether or not, Balzer was in
charge of the saloon at 101 Main
street at the date of the permit. Bal
ger admitted on the stand that he did
laot know as to this fact and Breen