The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1910-02-15
The Frv License Case


that he had never got any intoxicating
liquors at the hotel.
Raymond Thompson, another boy, said
he had never been in the hotel.
The case of the Law and Order League
having now been completed, T. Logan
Gaskill, of counsel for Harry M. C. Fry,
the hotel keeper, moved that the case be
discontinued on the ground that section
10 of the act under which these proceed
ings were brought is unconstitutional.
1t seeks to deprive man of the right of
trial by jury. These proceedings are of
criminal nature, and the act imposes a
penalty-that of revoking license
which can only be done by indictment.
Mr.. Shepherd, counsel for applicants
for revocation, stated that this phase of
the case had been passed upon by the
Supreme court, which decided that these
cases are of a civil nature.
Judge Horner refused Mr.. Gaskill's
motion, as the Supreme court had fully
decided the matter.
MIR. Morgan, of counsel for Fry, argued
that the intent of the Bishops law is that
holder OF license can not be brought
before the court for revocation until he
has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to
having violated the law. The statute
uses the word convicted" proceedings
for which can only be obtained after
indictment. He also asked that the pro-
ceedings should be discontinued, but the
Judge refused the motion.
Mr.. Morgan then filed demurrer to the
charges set forth in the petition for re-
vocation, and called Mr. Fry to the stand
to substantiate the demurrer. Mr.. Fry
denied that he had ever been arrested or
convicted Of violating the excise laws or
for any other offence. He denied specifi-
cally each of the charges set forth in the
petition. Mr. Morgan then renewed his
motion to dismiss the case, which was re-
fused.
Isaac FL. Lippincott, one of the signers
of the petition for revocation, was called
to the stand and asked by Mr.. Morgan if
he had personal knowledge of the charges
set forth in the petition or if it was gained
by hearsay. Mr.. Shepherd objected to
the question, as the act provided that the
affidavit of the signers to the application
can be made on knowledge and belief,
which is sufficient to give the court iuris-
diction to hear the case The objection
was sustained.
This concluded the applications for
quashing the proceedings, and the defense
began the presentation of its evidence.
Mr.. Fry was recalled. He said Young
man named Edward Phares had been in
the hotel number of times. Witness had
made number of inquiries as to the age
OF Phares and had been told by three
people that he was over 81. He denied
ever having sold liquor in quantities over
one quart, and had instructed his bar
lender to the same effect. Detective Won
Lear had boarded at the hotel for several
days, and witness had refused to sell him
liquor, on one occasion because the de-
tective was drunk. The four "bums"
which Won Lear had testified to seeing In
the barroom were four junk dealers, who
mad bought lot of scrap iron, etc.. in
Mount Holly and were loading it on the
cars. The men were not finely dressed,
but had plenty of money, were respectable
and of good conduct. Mr.. Frv said he
usually had one or two officers about the
place to maintain order and keep out
minors and intoxicated persons. When
ever In doubt as to the age of young men.
he had inquired about it from joseph
Wolfrom, Frank Howell or some other
resident of Mount Holly. E. John Hahn
came into the hotel one day and was in.
toxlcated; tried to borrow eighty cents
from witness for the alleged purpose of
buying railroad ticket to Hightstown.
but the loan was refused. Mr.. Fry said
ne Kept the hotel well lighted at night, so
that people could see what was going on,
and produced receipt showing one
months light bill to have been $74.
Morgan Vennell, bartender, denied hay
Ing sold liquor in quantities of one quart.
Had not sold to minors or intoxicated
persons. When disorderly men came into
the hotel they were ordered out or elected.
Bert Street, waiter in the restaurant at
the hotel, had never seen drink served to
minors or intoxicated persons. There
were colored persons In the place at times
but they did not conduct themselves in
disorderly manner.
Frank T. Howell, carpenter, has been
making quite extensive alterations in the
hotel, SO that he was in the place q great
deal during the progress of his work.
1t was quiet and orderly hotel. Witness
never drank anything over the bar.
Joseph Wolfrom had acted as extra bar
tender on number of occasions. He had
kept Mr. Fry informed as to the age of
young men who came into the hotel. Did
not sell wholesale or to minors or intoxi.
Gated persons. Edward Phares told wit
ness he was % years of age.
Arthur F. Bradley, Erwin Enright and
William Headley testified that they were
frequent visitors to the Imperial and al
ways found it quiet. well-conducted
place.
Thomas E. Norcross, wall paper sales
man, was in this hotel four or five times
day. He met man there known by the
name of Wallace, who now is known as
Won Lear, detective. This man asked
for drink one day and was refused be-
cause he was intoxicated. Won Lear was
staggering and couldn't talk straight.
George Fl. Branson, policeman, had
found good order in the hotel during his
few visits to the place.
Charles Furry and Thomas Hendrick-
son, who are employed in the switch
tower next to the hotel, never SAY any
disorder in or about the hotel.
Joseph S. Groom and John Elfreth,
watchmen at the railroad crossing near
the Imperial; William Dobbins, grocer's
delivery man; George Tomlinson, painter;
John Garrett, plumber; Fred Stockton
Martin II. Girven, and Squire Heilbron,
all testified as to the place being quiet and
orderly.
]. Frank Antrim, mail carrier had gone
into the hotel once and was Immediately
ordered out.
The petitioners called some witnesses in
rebuttal.
Rev. s. H. Hahn testified that he was