The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1926-12-11
AN EPOCH-MAKINC DECISION
CONTINUED from Page y

uSSu III maintaining the same, Is ncISDy
declared to be a common nuisance, and
any person who maintains such a COM
mon nuisance shall be guilty of mis-
demeanor and upon conviction thereof
shall be fined not more than 81 900 or be
imprisoned for not more than one year,
or both. If a person has knowledge or
reason to believe that his room, house,
building, boat, vehicle, structure, or place
is occupied or used for the manufacture or
sale of liquor contrary to the provision of
this title, and suffers the same to be so
occupied or used, such room, house, build
ing, boat vehicle, structure, or place shall
be subject to a lien for and may be sold
to pay all fines and costs assessed against
the person guilty of such nuisance for
such violation, and any such lien may be
enforced by action i'll any court having
Jurisdiction"
A number OF witnesses appeared at the
hearings, and much testimony was taken
by the Court, and the Court has fully con-
sidered all of the evidence; and the stu
alton as here presented is practically the
same as in the Wisconsin cases to which
reference is hereinafter made, wherein the
learned Judge says:
and it appears that this place has been
conducted as a resort to which people in
large numbers of all classes go for the
purpose of obtaining food, drinks, and
varied entertainment. People who
there congregated have there had and
there consumed Intoxicating liquor, COM
ing IN some way from some source. .
For years, daily and nightly, within the
cognizance, with the express consent, and
for the direct or indirect pecuniary con-
i'll & IL,
Quoting this place, it was used by a gen.
crafty of patrons for the purpose of there
consuming liquor; and of course, for its
possession and keeping there in some
way, by some one, to the extent essential
for the accomplishment of that purpose"
'But [ do not believe that upon the
showing made in these cases, it is at all
necessary to conhne them to the narrow
debate respecting the meaning of the
word kept in the nuisance statute. 1t
may be that in individual cases the Gov
eminent does not produce testimony
showing actual sales or bartering Com
mon knowledge, however, supports not
merely the inference, but rather a firm be-
lief, respecting some kind of barterng or
selling at or very near to places where
hundreds of people congregate and where
IN some way they receive or have and
place may be maintained so long as the
proprietor or conductor thereof can in
sist that he did not personally possess,
sell or barter in the liquor which was al
ways present, the law casts upon him no
obligation except that he shall not know.
"Thereupon he may safely maintain the
place, and with safety permit the liquor to
be present and possessed by some one,
and of course, may invite the liquor-pos-
sessing public to bring their liquor and to
bargain with him for the privilege of hav-
ing it in his place to be there consumed,
and, as shown in this case, sell them the
accessories, and the necessary service
needful for its consumpton-all at prices
which make his selling of the liquor incon-
sequential. Now, no one would deny that
these circumstances disclose, clearly,
culpable aiding and abetting in violation
of the law respecting both transportation
and Professionalism conspiracy-and in
my judgment it is idle to say that the
place is not a nuisance within the law"
L. S. VS.. Budar ct al
CarO1J 81 Vel (OoIN