The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1914-05-05
the court agreed with him and granted
L1cRNsE "Reminiscences

LICENSE REMONSTRANCES
!, Yesterday was taken up with the hear
ing of circumstances against granting
liquor licenses.
The first was against the Centreton
hotel, kept by Edward Penn.
| Judge Homer, representing the appli-
cant, objected to the remonstrants going
into details respecting the manner in
which the hotel had been conducted
during the past year. The only point to
be considered, he held, was the necessity
for the hotel, which was the specific
statement contained in the remonstrance
and the only one therefore requiring to
be answered If other matters were to
be considered, they must be included in
the remonstrance.
Judge Lippincott said he had an
nounced that all applications for license
must be in the first Thursday of the
term and remonstrances should be filed
the same day, in order that applicants
might be appraised of what they must
refute. In this case the question of
necessity seemed to be the only point at
issue.
MIR. Monroe, of Newark, representing
the remonStrantS, asked that he might
amend the remonstrance to cover other
points, but Judge Lippincott decided
that the paper must stand as presented
on the first day of court.
Charles Horner, who lives within half
a mile of the hotel, did not think it was
a necessity. He could not say how
many people put up there. There are
about so residents and 10 or II houses in
Centreton. He thought conditions in
the village had improved durings the
last year. He could not tell of people of
incorporate habits who frequent the
hotel. He said he was opposed to hotels
in general.
Robert Coombs was very positive there
is not any necessity for the hotel. 1t is
not needed by the public at large and is
not of any benefit to the community.
He had been in the hotel and got checks
cashed, but that was not any special
benefit. He had also bought drinks, not
because he needed them, but because he
wanted them, but would not admit the
hotel was any accommodation in that
case, because he kept liquor in the house
and could drink it there.
SilaS Walton could not see any neces-
sity for the place as very little business
is done at Centreton, hence nothing to
attract people. The hotel is not for the
public good so far as the number of in
habitants is concerned. He thought
licenses should be granted only to places
the size of Mount Holly and similar
towns.
Wilmot Hansell, who lives on the road
between Centreton and Masonyille, said
the hotel is not needed as it is not con-
ducive to the public good. He is op-
posed to the sale of liquor.
Matte Wilkins, who keeps a store at
did not know of MANY tran |
silent visitors at the hotel.
George Coleman, former proprietor of .
the hotel, said he had been away more
than year and was not much acquainted |
with conditions. He thought the hotel |
a necessity when he kept it. He sold it
because he wanted to get out of the bust |
ness. Transient travel varied during the !
year. lie made special effort to secure
boarders.
Other witnesses were called who testi-
fed that the house is not necessity, but |
all of them admitted they were opposed |
to the sale of liquor,
At the conclusion of the remonstrants' |
case, Judge Horner moved to dismiss the |
and grant the license, tax
ing as basis for this motion that the
court had ruled that there must be
shown that there was not necessity for
the place. This hotel had been licensed |
for so years and this was the first time
there had been any objection to it.
Judge Lippincott decided that no |
material change had been. shown during J
the past year. At that time the Bur |
lington County Court had granted a
license and had, by that action, shown |
that the place was not Objectionable up
to that time. Even if infractions of the |
law might occur, thus giving reason for
a motion to revoke a license, such break
ing of the statute must occur within a |
year after the granting of license.
Mr. Penn was granted his retail and
wholesale licenses.
James Mercer Davis took up the APP
plication of Henry A. Lehman for a |
license to keep hotel at Fieldsboro.
The place was formerly conducted by
Reeder, who built new house |
and the license was transferred, hence
this could not be considered an applica- |
ton for new house. The only point
was the question of population.
Judge Lippincott refused the license |
on the ground that the population of |
Fieldsboro would not permit more than |
one hotel there.
Having disposed of the Penn case
Judge Lippincott took up the applica-
ton of Henry Barry for license to sell |
by wholesale in Moorestown. This was |
the only application from that town, |
Edward Halleran having decided not to |
ask for whosesale privilege.
Former Senator Avis represented the |
and Assemblyman Pea
cock appeared for Barry. Senator Avis |
presented the record of the revocation of |
Barry's retail license and argued that !
the tenth section of the Bishop law pro-
vides that when license is revoked the |
place where it was held cannot be licensed |
again for year and that the holder of |
the license is also debarred from getting |
a license OF any kind at any place in the |
state for the same period Mr.. Peacock |
that this section referred to |
only the particular kind of license which |
was revoked. Judge Lippincott decided
in favor of Senator Avis contention and |
refused the license.
The remonstrance against granting |
either wholesale or retail license to |
John Stellman, of EvesborO, next oc- |
cupied the attention of the court Sena- |
tor Avis was for the remonstrants; v |
Claude Palmer for the applicant |
Several witnesses under the age of q |
years testified to having bought beer and |
whiskey at Stellman'S and taking it to |
their homes. All of the sales were made
on notes sent to the hotel keeper by some |
relatives of the child making the pur-
chase. One of the witnesses was gIrl |
of II years who said she bought whiskey
more than once. Another witness was
a bright little boy II years of age who
also had bought whiskey. Two other
children were prevented from testifying
because they were SO young they did not
understand the nature of an oath
Evidence was produced to the effect that
liquor had been sold to men whose
habits were such as to cause them to be
put on the flag list later. One man
said he was refused drinks over the bar
because of his incorporate habits but
was sold case of beer to take away with
him.
When the time for adjournment came
the remonstrants had finished their case
and further action was postponed until
the 18th of this month.