Arizona republican., 1910-03-16
THREE SALOONS
 WITHOUT LICENSES RESULT OF HEARING OF REVO-
 CATION CASES. Two Were Found Not to Have Vio- lated Courts Ruling in Hayes
 Case.

The hearing "f the complaints and
 petitions for tho revocation of the li-
 ccnscs of five saloons for selling i liquor tu minors was concluded in
 district court yesterday morning. and | the license of John Bodct proprietor
 of the Palace; that of John Eyrick, 1 proprietor of the Midway. and that of ! the Phoenix Amusement company. the ! Casino. were ordered revoked In the cases of R. r. Doli. oT ;ac =. T." | saloon. and M. l.. VicuX of the AIt- | hcuscr. the court Was of the opinion . that evidence had not been shown of la Wilcul violation of th" law.
 | Tn" order [" the board "f super isors to revoke thc three licenses has not vet been signed. and probably will [ not be until near the close of the { quarter when the licenses expire | While there was testimony show 1 iu- that minors had bought liquor at : all of the five saloons since last June. ! there was none to show that the law i had been violated by the Anheuser and the e IT. saloons after the 1 judgment of the court in the ease of 1 F. L. Hayes last fall, when the court ! plainly interpreted the laU and gave ! the saloon keepers rule of guidance. ! The court believed that. these tw" saloons had followed the rule. at ! least there was no ,vidcnc" that they i had not.
 i All the cases except that of Eyrick i had been heard on Monday. and that
 was taken up when court opened yes ] terday morning The evidence was of very damaging character. one Of.
 the witnesses who had been sum 1 moned for the defense testifying that 1 he himself had bought liquor there.
 though he was a minor.
 The following was the judgment otI |, the court rendered orally:
 Last fall there were tw" cases brought under this act providing that liquor to minors. upon trial. the charge being established. the district court may revoke his license and in both those cases the facts of the sale of liquor by those two saloons to mi uors were established. In one case
 the sales had been by the proprietor
 and the acts were fragrant. and the court in the discretion invested in it '
 |
 that man. MT. Hayes In the other
 case the Proprietor himself having |
 had nothing to do with the sales of
 liquor and the saloon having been an 1
 orderly. well-conductcd saloon. so far
 as the evidence showed. the court in
 its discretion did not revoke the li- | cense My purpose at that time was
 this: These were the first complaints !
 . b.. .i... under this law: il seemed tp pe that
 the proper thing to do in the exer-
 else of that discretion was inasmuch | a. one of the cases was a fragrant 1 case. to revoke the license of Hayes
 both because Of the acts done by | him were contrary to law and also to afford the other salooBkcepcrs in the community evidence that the law would be enforced by the court. I ! announced at that time that if other complaints were brought showing sub scuuent violations of the law. if the facts were proved before me. | should revoke the licenses. The fact of hay ing revoked the license where the facts were proved was in itself sufficient notice to the other saloonkecpcrs that if they did not keep within the law their licenses would be revoked. II seemed to me at the time and it seems. to me now wise to take the same attitude: that where evidence has been brought before me pr shall be brought before me of violations of this law of selling liquor to minors since the time of the revocation of the Hayes license last November-No- vcmbcr 30th-that the license of such saloonkcepers shall be revoked. eX- ccpt where there are eXtenuating cir cumstances that I can imagine pos sible. such as. for example. sale to q minor who was. perhaps only within