Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1915-07-22
MOTION TO QUASH CASE
AGAINST MARKS DENIED
Judge Pugh Sets Next Tuesday as
Date for Trial of.
Cause.
Hotel Mans Attorney Files Demur-
rer Against Information, Denying
D. G. Jurisdiction.

A motion to quash the Information
against Henry Marks. proprietor of
Marks Hotel. 1000 f street northwest,
charged with selling intoxicating
liquors at a hotel not having fifty bed
rooms for guests. was overruled by
Judge James l.. Pugh in the District
branch of the Police Court today
Following the overruling of the mo-
ton, Attorney James A. O'Shea gave
notice of his intention to file a de-
murrer. Assistant Corporation Counsel
Stephens asked that a date be set for
the trial.
The court accordingly said that the
case would go to trial next Tuesday.
The attorneys are to argue on the de-
murrer, which Attorney OShea is to
file. on Monday. Mr.. O'Shea urged the
court that the case should not be
brought to trial at this time. He said
the same questions are involved in this
case as are in the Metropolitan Club
case and that he thought there should
not be any trials until the Court Of
Appeals has ruled on those questions.
Judge Pugh said that he is satisfied
that under the act the excise board is
not authorized to grant a license to the
hotel, as the hotel does not contain fifty
bedrooms for guests He declared the
law clearly states that no license shall
be issued to a hotel not having the
specified number of bedrooms and that
when the excise board granted a license
1t exceeded its authority.
No Hotel Liquor License.
Taking up the contention of Attorney
OShea that the license granted to
Marks was for a barroom with a res
taurant privilege, the court held that
there is no such a thing as a hotel
liquor license. He said there are two
classes of licenses, that Of a barroom
and for wholesale business. Judge Pugh
said 1t is the duty of the assessor of
the District of Columbia to issue the
license after the excise board has
granted 1t.
in the name of a hotel" he said, ut
simply designates that a barroom can
be conducted at 1000 E street north
west 1t is silent as to hotel license"
The information charged that Marks
conducted barroom under supposed
authority of license from the excise
board of the District of Columbia at
the Marks HOTEL having less than
fifty bedrooms for guests of the house
at the time of the issue of said sup
posed license"
Allegations Of Demurrer.
In the motion to quash the informa-
ton 1t was set forth in part that the
information fails to charge in law a
crime or misdemeanor; the District of
Columbia has no Jurisdiction in the
premises to question the action of the
excise board: that the excise board was
created by act of Congress as quasi
judicial body, its duties defined and no
thority was given, or can any au-
thority be found anywhere for the
Commissioners of the District of Co
lumbia to question the action Of the
excise board; that the excise board
has the right to determine what is and
what is not a hotel and also what Is
restaurant and what is not a restau-
rant.
1t Is declared further in the motion
tina the excise board October 3, 1913.
designated the Marks barroom a res
taurant and that the District of Co
lumbia Is estopped from bringing the
prosecution. 1t is declared that If any
prosecution is brought in the Police
Court it should be brought in the name
of the United States and not on behalf
@ fthe District of Columbia.
Assistant Corporation Counsel Ste
phens stated to the court he is taking
one case in various groups. in which
the law is alleged to be violated, and
that the question of what is a place
of religious warship will come up We'd
neSday.