The Detroit times., 1911-12-09

cases, dismissal on each charge.
The much discussed charges against
Fred Postal. proprietor of the Girls
void house. and James ID. Burns, pro
prietor OF the Burns hotel, both OF
whom were accused OF violating the
liquor laws, were heard by Justice
Jeffries, Friday morning. with the
aforementioned result One OF the
Burns cases was dismissed because
the prosecution made a mistake in
designating the saloon part of the
hotel as No. Al Cadillac-sq. instead OF
No. 43. In the other case. Assistant
Prosecutor Don Van zile asked for dis
missai before any testimony was TAX
en-, explaining TO the court that he had
only the evidence OF one officers.
In the case where the mistake In
address was made, the prosecution
put two witnesses on the stand,
Patrolmen William l. Dwyer and
George j. Smith. Dwyer said that he
and Smith visited the Burns hotel,
Sunday afternoon. Sept rs. 1910, and
found liquor sold in the basement:
that IA men were drinking, and that
money was paid for the liquor.
Patrolmah Smith corroborated the
Testimony OF Dwyer. Both stated that
the sale of liquor took place under the
part OF the building at mo. Al Cadil-
lac-sq."
Noah A. Rounds, liquor license
clerk In the county treasurer's office,
testified that the license for the
burns hotel covered the store at No.
43 Cadillac-sq
The first cases taken up were those
against Postal. Assistant Prosecutor
Nfn Zile appeared for Prosecutor
shepherd. The court intimated a few
days ago that he wanted Mr. Shep-
nerd In court as the prosecutor in the
cases against Postal and Burns.
May | go ahead with the cases?"
asked Mr. Van Zile.
1 guess so, said Justice Jeffries,
with a smile. Well likely see the
prosecutor when the cases get up to
real court
Il see no reason why Mr.. Van Zile
should not try the cases, in the alb
sence of the Lycurgus OF Wayne
county court interposed Attorney
Jtmes Murtha, representing Mr.. Pos
tai. Il think he can do as we'll as
the prosecutor.
Personally, think he can do bet
ter" said the court.
Patrolman Roy Baker and Stephen
Martin testified that they were in the
cafe of the Griswold house at 1890
a. m. Sunday, March 10. that they
saw drinks served. that music was
playing, that the cashier was there,
LII ri
and that Mr.. Postal was present. They
saw no money paid for drinks. the
patrons giving pasteboard checks for
what. they got.
Mr.. Van Zile intimated to the court
that, inasmuch as there was no mon
ey paid for the drinks, there might
be lack Of evidence.
''It makes no difference whether
there was money paid or not" said
the court sharply. The supreme
court has ruled that IL drinks are
served on Sunday in any place where
liquors are sold on week days, there
is violation of the liquor laws, and
this court Is going to be guided by the
Interpretation OF the supreme court.
One reason why | wanted Mr.. Shep-
herd here was 10 take up this very
point with him. Whom do you rep
resent, anyway. Mr.. Van Zile-the
rcople OF the defenseT
Attorney Murtha reminded the
court that there was no testimony to
show that drinks were served in the
cafe on week days.
"The prosecutor can produce wit
nesses to show that drinks are served
in the cafe on week days II IL wants
t11 hn
cution is all diligent in its search for
testimony 20 that effect as II Is In re-
gard to others of lesser light within
the half-mile circle. there Is no doubt
that the evidence will be forthcoming.
There is probably just cause to
suspect that this cafe is a place where
drinks are sold on week days.
The law says that it is violation
OF the liquor law to serve liquor on
Sunday in a restaurant where drinks
are served on week days. A cafe, as
we common people understand 1t, is
a restaurant, and there doesn't appear
to be any doubt about liquor being
sold in Mr.. Postal's cafe on the night
in question. He was there himself and
allowed the sale OF drinks TO go on
Now, 75 per cent of the liquor cases
which have come TO this court in the
past two years have been OF this sort
The prosecution demanded that they
be bound over for trial and this court
did SO. There Is no difference between
those cases and this one of Mr.. Pos.
tai. and there is no reason why he
should be treated any differently than
anyone else. There Is no buncombe
about this court. Those favored by
financial success as result of enjoy
ing privileges should be the first tc
obey the law and set an example fol
the less fortunate. Any man who has
sucked the lemon dry and become
wealthy in the saloon business should
be above breaking the laws OF regula
ton.
IL have absolutely no use for q
hypocrite. Hypocrisy Is the worst
crime | know of, and IL has done more
harm to the country than anything
else.
TT has come TO the ears OF the
court that the prosecutor wants e
save Mr.. Postal. He should have
been here, however. in order not Il
swerve from his path OF righteous
ness. | think he was derelict In hi
duty in not coming. When IL comes
TO enforcing the lsw,I am with him
William B. Morton, OF the Morgan
bouse was also held for trial I'm IN,