Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1911-03-06

- 80 VII NESo
And vioIatsd Lisuor L.w,-Thr,,
sesparass Counts Against John Nc.
osiIlan--sssavy Finss irnpossd-
counssi Appsais.
SATURDAY morning the local court
room was crowded by peopIe iriferested
IN the arraignxnant 81 John McQuillan
charged with violating the HQuor law
Dy ssnlng afquor on Sunday, a week
ago, On three separate counts, and also
with attempting t. brtbs states Wit
ness % stay away from court. Attor-
neg Tnomas y Kelley, who represented
Mc@suilan, catered demurrer to all
'c cls, Dat wass overruled by Judge
Waiii Will A. Arnold. who found the &C.
On each OF the counts of selling
nq,lor on Sunday q fine OF $50 and
Cats was Imposed, and on the count
81 brn3ng q witness q tlne of 800 was
/ imposed Attorney Kelley took an ap-
Of 500 were liked for the count OF
Sunday selling and Of 5000 for bribine
Witness. II found guilty in the su-
perfor court, the case will probably
mean the forfeiture Of Mr.. McG,1illan'f
license and also of his bond of $500,
az 1t was alleged in the complaints that
McQuillan had been previously con-
| vlcted of violating the liquor law on
May 2e. 1902.
| Attorney Kelley waived the reading
Of the complaints on the violation Of
the liquor law, which alleged two sep
arate sales of q pint of whiskey on
Sunday afternoon, Feb. rs, to one Was
sci Gemboreski, and sale Of q pint Of
wniskey on the same afternoon to one
Max TyniAlk, and at once entered q
I demurrer. In the demurrer he took
exception to the second count of the
4 .cQnDia1nt aJIaRfD~ IA
cal with the first count and no other.
He ALSO took exception to the part OF
the complaint alleging q subsequent
CONVICTION on May 2e. 1902, saying that
II was made before the passage OF the
statute law providing for subsequent
convictions and previous TO this license
year and therefore should not apply
Claimed Only One Count.
| Attorney Kelley claimed that only
one count should prevail, as the COM
piaint set up two separate crimes,
whereas there was only one. In re-
gAr4 70 the second exception, he said
trat there was no law then with regard
&c 2 Subsequent conviction. In July,
1908. the law was passed, and what
We not an oRsnse in 1902 could hard
~ De made an offense in 1903 as the
| statute could not be made retrospective
| ana therefore should not apply to the
present case. Secondly, there should
De restrictions Of some sort as to sub
nequeht convictions there should be a
limitation Of time as to the effect OF
suossquent convictions The statute In
providing for suitable person to be
granted liquor license provides that
lne honye must not pc granted to
! ps.vn WIG mas oeen converted OF
time ne applied for the license. Sure
~; then Z subsequent conviction could
only apply to the license year and the
Year pe1ore. tnere!ore ne could not see
now tne court could 90 other than rec
onmend nom forfeiture OF the license.
:. suo9e arnold inquired OF Mr.. Kelley
nss..1S ~ 20 NJ ar9ument, 2 man
1919. noe v,Ui.te tne law evefy tive
| ~ 1919 Ia stln ps eu8Iple Tor Incense.
~ 10y expiaineo tnat ne was SIM
ny slvi1S the requirements OF the
stAtute Tor suitable person to be
sntso 2 license.
NOT rut to Plea
L As the object OF the demurrer was to
rake the case to the higher court. Nc
Sullan was not put to plea, and Mr..
o0Dse SIMPLY explained the case, say
/ ing INT young man went TO the sa-
a lVn .run py Mf. Mce!uihan on Sunday
company with = friend, ana bought
p.nt g wniskey from MI McQuiilan.
ano mat later. about o'clock. the two
% shem again went to the saloon and
zen poognt pint OF wnisksy from
"a. 1&se9aien. Kegaroing the penalty,
ne rzhAseo tnat the court would impose
proper penadty. but the prosecuting
asenL w. % the opinion tnat stln
pen4Ity should De imposed.
| Atof ney he1ey urged the ien1ency
% tne court. ne pointed out that II
Oui,,an Ma 49, hsrc,~ IN oc,,,4 s ~
I said that IL was an exceptional ,acord
| for with the present restrictions on the
selling Of intoxicatfnr Itouora # was
| aimost impossfble to cover that period
| OF wears without a vioiation. He AID
| Keeper in the state mt what had viz
| lated the law IN acme narticuIar durtnc
| the year. although he might not have
been before the court He therefore
| felt that the fine should not be a severe
| one.
Had Had Many CoronI.infe
rra~ s-r.Ia ,...,,sn.a - r,...-...
ASsut xaa. ou - ~ G ~ u u'ii 3
r-bs4s ~ =. Sreensn. ,.. ec
WI ~ ~ aau Aau any coaR 1s Pc
and he replied that he he had lad had many MANY
every year since 1902. Attorney KEEL
| Icy said something about the court
| taking into consideration these state
ments, and Mr.. Greenslit asked per-
mission to say a few words. This was
granted and he spoke Of the number Of
| complaints he received since 1902. ANY
nne imposed by the court would Be-
satisfactory to him. but he thought
that the crime Of sailing liquor to
Iyoung men hardly beyond 81 years OF
age, on Sunday, after he had been al
lowed to sell on the other six DAYS OF
the week, was one that did not merit a
l light fne.