The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1914-03-03

$ was said to have occurred he said
t young man entered the hotel and asl1e
: for drink, but it was refused him be
: cause he was not in condition to get it
: This angered the young man. VIII,
started disturbance, and an officer wa
sent for and the troublesome man taker
out. Mr.. Halleran went to the office O
justice of the peace the next morn
ing and entered complaint against the
offender. He never allowed liquor sold
to Dennis Henry when he was under its
influence and he said there was not a
bottle in the package which had been ties
titled to. He knew man named Maust
and had refused him once, but had
sold to him on several other occasions
With reference to the Furter case Mr..
Halleran said he saw the young man
and his father come from the barroom.
Mr.. Halleran went in and asked the
bartender if the young man had been
served with drink. (The court ruled that
! the conversation with the bartender,
since dead, was not admissible.) The
witness then said he had spoken to the
young man about his age, and the lat
ter had said he was 81. Witness had
also spoken to Furter's grandfather but
never mentioned the subject to the
father or mother. Mr.. Halleran said he
spent much time around the Office and
the barroom, especially Saturday even
ings, as people would come on the troll
leys, sometimes under the influence of
liquor, and he made it practice to keep
them from getting into the barroom.
He referred to a disturbance in which a
man named Murphy was connected. A
party of automobile people entered the
hotel. They were strangers to him and
all appeared to be sober. He heard
disturbance and went to the barroom,
where he found one of the party trough
housing with Murphy, who appeared
to be imposed upon. Mr. Halleran tele-
phoned to police headquarters and had
the crowd elected.
Arthur Furter was recalled and denied
ever telling any bartender that he was
q years of age.
This concluded the testimony and
Judge Wescott asked permission to make
his argument in order that he might get
away before noon. This request was
granted, and the Encouragement ar
gued for the hotels, taking the position
that there was little evidence beyond
that of the detectives that was worth
considering. He thought it would be
more to the credit of the people of
Moorestown if, instead of trying TO ruin
the business of these men, business
made lawful by the state of New Jersey,
they would band together and make up
a purse to remunerate them for the loss
they would sustain if the license was
taken away, a procedure he predicted
was sure to be the result.
For the other side Mr.. Sheppard re-
piled that the people of Moorestown
were not interfering with the lawful
business of any one. 1t was the unlaw-
full business they were after, and hotel
keepers took the matter entirely in
their own hands when they sold liquor,
and if their acts were such as to make
them amenable to the law and subject
to loss they alone were responsible. Mr.
Sheppard quoted several cases to sup
port his contentionthat the law had been
disregarded to such an extent as to cause
the license to be revoked.
Former senator Avis followed in re
view of the testimony and claimed that
the case might easily be decided on the
evidence of the witnesses for the de-
fence.
LICENSES REVOKED
Judge Horner then rendered his de-
cision. He said the Halleran case was
not as strong as that against Barry, but
it covered greater scope. In the Barry
case there was no allegation of sale to
minor, but there was absolute proof of
such an act. The Judge went over the
several charges in the complaint and
said that there was not the slightest
doubt about the violation of the law re-
speeding the selling of liquor to persons
under the influence of liquor, those of
confirmed incorporate habits, and in
one case at least to minor. The testi-
mony on permitting boys to lounge in
the barrooms, harboring drunkards and
keeping disorderly house, was of such
a nature that doubt might be cast upon
it, so it would not be considered as con-
elusive. There had not been any testi-
mony showing a violation of the act
under which wholesale licenses had been
granted, therefore they would not be dis
turbed. The decision of the court was
that an order should be entered revoking
the retail license of both Henry Barry
and Halleran & Co.