The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-08-06
SELLS WHISKEY,
GETS 6 MONTHS
AND $1,000 FINE
Cafe Owner Convicted on
Charge of Violating
War Time Law.
JURY OUT TEN MINUTES
Federal Judge Rejects Plea
That Armistice Nulli-
fled Statute.
~ ~ - y II
JURY OUT TEN MINUTES
DETECTIVES GOT BOOZE
Appeal to Be Taken and Test
Made in High Court, Law
yer Announces.

Judge James c. Wilson of the United
States District Court yesterday SEN
fenced John H. Voege, 1l2 Centre
street, to six months Imprisonment and
imposed a fine of $1,000 for selling
liquor July in violation of the war
time prohibition act. Voege Is the pro-
prietor Of a cafe at Franklin and Gen.
tire streets.
The saloon long was the property
of Tom Foley and was rather famous
Voege is said to have paid 100000 for
the place a few years ago.
A special agent of the Department
Of Justice. Pasquale Pigniuolo. testi-
fed that on July 8 he and Joseph
Tucker. another special agent, entered
Voege's and asked for whiskey and
got 1t.
Pouring some whiskey from the bottle
which Voege placed on the bar into a
glass, Pigniuolo then emptied the glass
OF liquor into a small bottle which he
took IRON his pocket. According to the
witness, when Voege saw him do this
he reached across the bar and tried to
knock the bottle from his hand. Failing
to- accomplish that he came around and
pleaded with Pigniuolo to return it.
Jury snins Evidence.
The liquor was taken to DR.. Winfield
Hubbard. associate chemist in the bu-
reau OF chemistry of the Department Of
Agriculture. for analysis. and was in
-.
Jurors were permitted to sniff of the
liquid, which they did. grinning in the
knowledge that according to the advice
OF DR.. Hubbard II contained 2sh per
cent. ethyl alcohol.
Robert Moore counsel for the defence,
based his case on the unconstitutionality
of the wartime act, and that there was
no proof that the stuff sold by Voege
was sold for beverage purposes, and that
there was no proof that the bottled
liquor shown in court was the same that
Voege had sold.
In speaking of the unconstitutionality
OF the war time prohibition act. Mr..
Moore said Congress- had no right to pass
this law and call IL a war time measure
because at the time II was passed the
armistice had been signed. He claimed
that the exigency mentioned IN the law
did not exist at the time of it's passage.
The army, he said. was being mustered
out, hostilities had ceased and munition
work had ended. His contention was
that Voege did not break the law when
he had a license to sell liquor which he
had on hand.
Mr.. Moore claimed that the stun was
not bought for drinking purposes be-
cause no one had yet drunk any of It.
He said the request had been for
"whiskey," not a drink of whskey."
Prosecutor in RebuttaI.
John Fine. the prosecuting attorney
combated these statements by pointing
out that the law forbade the sale of dis
titled spirits, and that what Mr.. Voege
had sold had been proven a distilled
spirit. and that the nature of the place
in which II was sold precluded miscon-
ceptions as to what use II was sold
Addressing the Jurors. Judge Wilson
said he held the war time prohibition
act to be constitutional, and quoted a
passage from the statute which said the
date OF rehabilitation would be fixed by
the President. No such proclamation
having been made. he said the act still
held good.
The jury was out little more than ten
minutes, returning with. a verdict Of
guilty.
Mr.. Voege, still under bail, was put in
the custody OF his counsel for ten days
Moore said he would appeal.