Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Adolph Rand, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-07-24
Citations: 114 A.D. 826
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Adolph Rand, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 826–827

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Adolph Rand, Appellant.
Second Department,
July 24, 1906.
Crime—sale of liquor on Sunday.
It is not necessary for a saloon keeper personally to escort customers into his bar room on Sunday in order to be guilty of a violation of the Liquor Tax Law. If the customer is allowed to enter and buy liquor it is sufficient.
Appeal by the defendant, Adolph Rand, from' a judgment, of-the Court of Special Sessions of. the city, of New York, rendered on'the 6th day of November, 1905, convicting the defendant of" the crime of violating the Liquor Tax Law. " ■
Moses Weinman [Lowis Malthaner with him on the brief], for the appellant.
Peter P. Smith [John F. Clarke with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Hirschberg, P. J.:
The defendant has been convicted in this case as the holder of a liquor tax certificate for admitting to the room where- liquors were sold persons other than members of 1ns family, on Sunday. (See Liquor Tax Law [Laws of 1896, chap. 112], § '31, subds. a, g, as amd. by Laws of 1903, chap. 486.) The evidence is amply sufficient to justify his conviction, but his counsel appears to think that because he did not personally escort the customer into the barroom he did not admit him under the law. This contention, of course, cannot prevail. The place was open on Sunday. The defendant and the barkeeper both were there. The customer came in and bought the lager beer, and the defendant consequently, in the legal as well as in the ordinary sense, admitted him to the room.
I recommend that the judgment of conviction be affirmed.
Hookes, Gaynob, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
Judgment of conviction affirmed.