Evening journal., 1914-06-11

ing along or being on Market street
TO the bar doing business on that
street, and to attract and invite per
sous passing along or being on Ship
ley street to the bar doing business
on that street.
IF the Galtry device OF having
hallway connecting the two places
on separate streets can convert them
into one place Of business, the same
poor shift may be made to convert
every building in any block into one
house, aud 80 authorize a person hay-
ing license to reail In one to widen
It's operations and open bar In every
house In the entire block.
The test as to whether a person is
selling IN two places would seem to
be as follows: Does the person or
liconsee hold out to the public at two
different places, with separate eli-
frances from the street, a place Cor
the sale Of intoxicating liuuors2 III
he does ! am clear that he Is not
maintaining only one place OF busi-
ness, but two places OF business, and
that he is selling at not only one
place qf business, but at two places
Of business, and thus violating Sec
ton Of the Act Of 1873.
THE accused IN the case al bar
has particularly designated the place
where he desired TO sell as No. 5t3
| Market street He has not even
designated II as a hotel, or described
1t In any other way.
From this description. the Court
OF General Sessions itself were
wholly unable 10 determine anything
more than that the place was at No.
5l3 Market street; for had they
known that that place extended to
Shipley street, and that the licensee
under former licenses was conduct
ing another bar or place OF business.
not exclusively for colored people,
they could not have granted the H.
cense; for II they did, knowing the
facts, they must have violated their
own rule, In which the Court OF Gen
eral Sessions says that the keeping
or maintaining OF more than one bar
for the sale of liquors upon the place
Of the applicant Shall be regarded
as a sufficient ground for the refusal
TO renew a license, unless the separ-
ate bars are one for white and the
other fer eolored people. In addi-
/ tion 10 the foregoing reasons, II
I FNAtuh W Att AAiAA hnt dIAuntu hHQuth
/ be bound by his own designation OF
| the place where he desires to sell In
| toxicating liquors, and he has stated
that to be, No. 513 Market street.
/ IL he had gone one step farther and
designated his building In the appli-
cation as Mullins Hotel and the nd-
! Joining building on Shipley street, In
my opinion he could have sold under
Aa4t Ia ~. Aa4fr
| tel OF IN any place in the adjoining
building. OF course, II he maintained
separate bars for white people IN
both places he would have been vio-
lating the rule OF Court, but not any
OF the privislons Of the law.
ut Is admitted in the agreed state
ment Of fact. that the accused paid
taxes to the United States Govern
ment for both places; one on Market
street, he described as No. 5l3 Market
street, and the place IN which he was
engaged in the liquor business, and
the other ON shlpley street, described
as at No. 5i2 Shipley street
Tho Legislature OF this state has
provided that the fact the party ac
cused pays taxes to the United Stalr!
2 Government as a retail LIQUOR dealer
may in the discretion OF the Court hi
prima facie proof to convict. In tliii
case no attempt was made to show al
explain why the accused thought Il
necessary TO take out two licenses
under the United States Government
for two places, one on Market street
the other on Shipley street, which he
now contends Is one place.
"In the absence of some explana-
ton as TO why the accused consider
ed that he was conducting business
as a retaiior liquor dealer in two
places, one would seem TO be tusti-
fled in concluding that he considered
them two places at the time he took
out the two Government licenses
Why should not the accused be bound
by his own opinion as to whether the
places were one and the same places.
or two distinct and different places
at which he was doing businessT"
Judge Churchman reviewed the
facts agreed on by Counsel in pre-
senting the case to the court, and
concluded.
"Under the foregoing state OF facts
, II is obvious that the accused held
out to the public at two different
places, with separate entrances from
each street, a place for the selling
Of intoxicating liquors.
"Under the test stated, the defendant
Is clearly maintaining two places OF
business, and having sold at the place
, known as No. 512 Shipiey street as
charged in the information, he IS
guilty Of a violation of Section 8, OF
the Act Of 1873, which provides that
licensee can sell at but one place
only"
, ABottle Law Cases.
In deciding the three charges
against Andrew p. Casey Of selling IL
quor in bottles. to be drunk off the
premises, without having the special
. or "bottle" license at the time, judge
Churchman's decision said In part;
"The defendant offered no evidence
/ in any Of the cases against him.
/ Counsel for the defendant con-
0 tends that il was necessary for the
State to prove in this case, that the
/ liquor sold, was to be drunk off the
+ premises, as such allegation is ma
terial allegation, and must be proved
! as alleged. Counsel cites no author
] ity i'm support Of his contention Tho
question, however, has been decided
in other States"
After quoting an authority Judge
Churchman said
"By a parity of reasoning to con-
stitute the offense of selling liquors
to be drunk off the premises, II is
not necessary that the liquors should
have been drunk off the premises. or
fhat thav ehould have hepn drunk at