Evening journal., 1914-05-07
ARGUE NEW points
IN LIQUOR Gases
Mr.. Richards Argues That
Enforcement of Penalty
Would be COnfiScatiOn
CHARGES GROW OUT OF
SALES AT TWO BARS

OfALlIO n L wv DfAlNO ]
This was saloon day in City Court !
the cases of Thomas NJ Mullin,
Nicholas Caruso. Edward Krause.
Edward Fahey. Andrew r. Casey and
Mrs Joanna Hanley being called for
argument. Mullin, Caruso and Krause
are accused Of having two bars and
but one license. and the others are
accused of selling liquors to be taken
off the premises without having
special license.
p l.. Garrett, representing Casey,
asked that the case go over untd to-
morrow morning. as Mr. Garrett had
two cases for trial in the upper
court today, and could not argue the
case today. He informed the Court
that r. H. Richards and John f. NAL
10y would argue on certain points
raised and he desired to argue on the
intent of the alleged violation of the
law on the part of the saloon men in
selling liquor at two bars in their
places of business. The Casey case
was accordingly continued until to-
morrow morning. Judge Churchman
will give a decision in the case on
May 2l
Assistant City Solicitor Lynn then
began argument on the questions
raised by Judge Churchman several
weeks ago. ell dwelt at length on the
provision of the statute that the place
for which the license Is sought and
obtained must be designated and
every requirement be strictly COM
piled with. The claim was made that
had Mullins license described his
property fully as being on the west
side of Market street so many feet
/ south of Sixth and running parallel
with Sixth to Shipley street, then the
/ licensee could sell intoxicating
liquors in any part of such house.
Mr.. Lynn contended that in the
Mullin and Caruso cases the testi-
, mOny went to prove that liquor was
/ sold in a place or at bar not Ii
! censed and therefore he claimed the
defeudants should be convicted He
also claimed that in the other cases
sales had been proved and the accused
persons therefore should be convict
| ed.
Mr. Richards said he represented
! Thomas NJ. Mullin and Edward Fahey.
Before taking up his brief he re-
I ferred to a suggestion made by the
court regarding the conditions for
applying for a license to sell intoXi-
eating liquor.
1T is clear that the averments in
the petition for a license are juris-
dictional, and they and the conditions
to be averred are iurisdictiOnal," Mr.
Richards said.
At this point Assistant City Solci-
tor Lynn asked the court to admins
ter the pledge to a man in the dock
Mr.. Richards remarked il was a
good time to take the pledge. Judge
Churchman administered the oath.
Mr. Richards then took up the ar
n gument regarding the designation o
the place where the Intoxicating
liquor is to be sold. The courts have
said that the word Premises mean
more than the place" he argued. II
would seem that in place like the
city of Wilmington designation by
street and number of the place gives
the public general information. In
deed, the city authorities are pre-
vented from changing the names o
I
street and number in the city of VII
mington is considered sufficient for
property. He referred TO the desig
nation of the Windsor Hotel IN th'
, Lofland case.
Ia the city of Wilmington no othel
, means is practicable to describe a prop
ertv than by the number and streets
The question OF the issuance O.
] ~ N.1an
Argument followed regarding th'
b penalty in case of convictions lh'
jurisdiction Of the Municipal Court II
such case as the present one OF sell
inc houor without license is estab
lished. The Mundy case IN the uppe
court is identical with the Fahey cas
now before the city Court. Mr.. Rich
ards claimed The defense conteuds th
court has no authority TO impose
penalty by an order directing the shcr
iif TO enter the premises and suppres
the business.
Judge Churchman called the attention
of the attorneys TO the fact that th
= Municipal Court was established by th
Legislature and the law governing th
sale of intoxicating liquors without
license gives the court authority q
punish all persons"
Mr.. Richards said it does seem mucl
can be said about the word persons
as TO the punishment of same III
, seizure of an inn or tavern by the sher
in to prevent a further violation am
! the taxing of the costs would aifec
some person, and not be a punishment
Of the person but seizure of the prop
b erty Just as much as the seizure of
boat or a house. The contention wa
made that the court does not have iur
isdiction to impose a penalty Of seizur
of the property and that the penaltie
= applicable make the law void II W. .
i observed that these penalties appl
/ only TO person who is the owner O
) an inn or tavern. Mr.. BcharS, said.
! lahey in this case would be mulcte
I in penalty of seizure and costs con
trary TO the fourteenth amendment o
the Constitution, il the penalty shoui
be enforced. Mr. Richards said.