1910 Saloon Cases, Newpaper Accounts

The Gazette
18 May 1910

LICENSE NOT REVOKED
Two of the Six Cases Against Saloon Keepers Tried and Defendants Declared Not Guilty

Two of the cases against saloonkeepers of this city occupied the attention of the council for several hours last Thursday [12 May, 1910] and Friday [13 May 1910] evenings, an adjournment not being taken on the latter date until 1 o'clock Saturday morning. The prosecution on Thursday evening was against Albert and George Klish, charged with selling liquor to Hyman Fisher, a minor between the age of 13 and 14 years. The prosecution on behalf of the local W.C.T.U. was represented by Rufus B. Smith, a Madison attorney, while D.I. Sicklesteel appeared for the defense and W.F.Owen was present to look after the interests of the city. The first named attorney read the affidavits from records in justice and circuit courts, to all of which Mr. Sicklesteel interposed a general denial. Mr. Smith objected to the introduction of evidence of any kind, and read extracts from a lengthy brief which he had prepared to support his contention. Mr. Sicklesteel read court decisions supporting the defendants's side of the controversy, and asked that the demurrer made by the attorney for the prosecution be overruled. This was done on motion of Ald. Schenk by a vote of 8 to 2, those voting no being Scribner and Sparks.

Mr. Smith said he would introduce no testimony, would not cross examine witnesses or make an argument. Geo. and Albert Klish were examined separately, both denying that Fisher had been in their saloon or that he had secured liquor of any kind from them. They had plead guilty because they had been advised this was the cheapest and best way to get out of the difficulty after their arrest. To questions submitted by City. Atty. Owen, the witnesses denied making alleged admissions to Judge Webb in circuit court.


The attorneys submitted written resolutions for the consideration of the council, who went into executive session, and declared by a vote of 7 to 5 that the defendants were not guilty. Those who voted for the defendants were Abb, Altenberg, Firkus, Heffron, Port, Schenk and Urowski; for the prosecution, Cook, McDonald, Redfield, Scribner and Sparks.

Friday evening [13 May 1910] the case against Julius Retzski, charged with selling liquor to Carl Dake, a minor, commanded the attention of the mayor, council, attorneys and many spectators, and ended in a tie vote, 6 to 6, which was decided by Mayor Walters, who voted in favor of Retzski, declaring that he was not guilty of the charges preferred and that his license should not be revoked. The vote was the same as that of the evening before, except that Altenberg left the defense and went over to the prosecution.


Chief of Police Hafsoos swore that he arrested young Dake in an intoxicated condition on the 11th of Feb., that he visited the Retzski saloon on the following day in company with Dake, and that Louis Retzski, who at that time said his name was Julius, admitted that he had sold liquor to Dake. Louis appeared in Justice Park's court, plead guilty to the charge and paid his fine.
J.W.Dake, grandfather of Carl, was called, but could not remember or state positively how old the young man is. He stated that the latter had gone west four or five weeks ago, presumably to take up a homestead.

Julius Retzski when called created a mild protest from Chief Hafsoos, who supposed that the young man who entered the plea of guilty was the only and original Julius and had never been informed to the contrary. Julius is the father of the young man who appeared in court last February, and he gave his testimony through an interpreter, John Corda [-2]. Julius said he is a saloonkeeper and farmer, his farm being in Carson, and showed that the license taken out in 1909 was in his name and paid for by him. His sons, Max and Louis, are employed as his bartenders, and for their work are given their support and spending money. He did not sell any liquor to Dake and does not know him.
Max Retzski stated that he was employed in the saloon on the 11th, but did not sell or give any liquor to Dake and did not known (sic) who he was until the day after.

Louis Retzski reiterated the above statement and also stated that he was the one who had plead guilty in justice court, paying the fine and costs, as he did no want his father to know anything about the affair. He was advised to enter a plea of guilty by his friends, who told him it would be much cheaper than to hire a lawyer and fight the case.

At the conclusion of the testimony, which was a long drawnout affair, owing to continual objections to testimony being admitted or answered by counsel on the opposite sides, especially by the attorney for the prosecution, nearly an hour was taken up in arguments by Messrs. Smith, Sicklesteel and Owen, at the conclusion of which the council and mayor, acting as jury and judge, rendered their decision as stated. D.J. Leahy has been acting as court reporter or stenographer.

Mrs. McMillan, matron at Mercy hospital, whose husband committed suicide a few months ago, was present as a witness in the event that she should be called upon, but this was not a case in which she was directly interested. A number of other ladies, members of the W.C.T.U., have also attended each meeting of the council in which any action was expected or taken. Before going into executive session Ald. Schenk remarked that he thought that women who would hire minors, boys outside of their own families, to go to saloons and secure beer or liquor of any kind, that they might secure evidence against a saloonkeeper, are as bad as the saloonkeeper, and both the boys and women should be punished. Mayor Walters stated that as Mrs. McMillan knew the character of the man she married before their marriage he did not think she was entitled to as much sympathy as she would otherwise be.

City Atty. Owen, who was present in the interest of the city, as advisor of the mayor and council, presented some legal points that he thought had been overdrawn on both sides, and consequently may have been misunderstood. When presenting some facts that seemed directly in favor of the prosecution, Mr. Smith attorney for that side, made objections, directing the reporter time and again to note his objections, and at the conclusion of Mr. Owen's remarks thanked him for the "excellent argument he had made for the defense." Mr. Owen did not fall, but said he felt as though a feather would knock him down.

The hearing in other like cases will be resumed this evening.

**********

Stevens Point Daily Journal
19 May 1910

BUT YOUR CAN'T CHANGE IT.

Members of the Common Council
Are of the Same Opinion Still
on Saloon Question.

At an adjourned meeting of the common council held Wednesday [18 May, 1910] night three of the saloon cases were temporarily disposed of. These were the cases of Strong Bros., Peck Bros. and August Kotlewski. In all three cases the council voted to acquit the defendants of the charges made against them. In the case of Strong and Kotlewski the vote of the aldermen was a tie, the mayor deciding in favor of the saloonkeepers. In the case of Peck Bros. the vote was 7 to 5 in favor of the defendants. The vote stood the same as in the first two cases.

The first case on the calendar was that of Nowak & Sheppreaux. Mr. Sicklesteel filed a physician's afidavit signed by Drs. von Neupert, declaring Nowak to (sic) ill too (sic) appear in court. By mutual agreement the hearing of this case was put over until the last. At the conclusion of the other three cases Mr. Smith, attorney for the complainants, asked that this case also be called at this time, as he was a long way from home and he did not anticipate the general result would be any different. He asked as a special favor that the case go on. Mayor Walters replied that "we" recently had some favors to ask of Smith and he did not feel disposed to grant them. Therefore he could not see wherein the council was under any obligations to Smith. The council then insisted on adjourning at once, until 8:45 tonight. The hour is set late because of the Business Men's banquet tonight. While the fact was not mentioned by Mayor Walters today that the reason the council was so insistent on adjourning was that there were other legal matters of importance that demanded immediate attention and which in fact were not disposed of until 11:45. It is understood that the matters referred to were in connection with the tax equalization litigation between the city and county.

At the outset of the hearing Wednesday night Mr. Smith offered to adjourn the hearing of the four remaining license cases for two weeks, or until the regular meeting in June in order to give time to get a hearing on mandamus proceedings, in the circuit court. Mr. Sicklesteel wanted the postponement to be indefinite, as, he said, he knew it would be impossible to dispose of the mandamus proceedings before the next council meeting. Mr. Smith refused to agree to any such form of postponement and the mayor decided the trial should go on now.

In the Strong case Frank Strong was the only witness examined. He pleaded guilty on two separate counts in Justice Park's court. The minor to whom he sold in one case was Irving Fitzmaurice and in the other it was Eldo Timlin. Timlin is a very conspicuously crippled boy who lives opposite the Soo line station and spends a great deal of time on the depot platform. litigation between the city and county.

At the outset of the hearing Wednesday night Mr. Smith offered to adjourn the hearing of the four remaining license cases for two weeks, or until the regular meeting in June in order to give time to get a hearing on mandamus proceedings, in the circuit court. Mr. Sicklesteel wanted the postponement to be indefinite, as, he said, he knew it would be impossible to dispose of the mandamus proceedings before the next council meeting. Mr. Smith refused to agree to any such form of postponement and the mayor decided the trial should go on now.

In the Strong case Frank Strong was the only witness examined. He pleaded guilty on two separate counts in Justice Park's court. The minor to whom he sold in one case was Irving Fitzmaurice and in the other it was Eldo Timlin. Timlin is a very conspicuously crippled boy who lives opposite the Soo line station and spends a great deal of time on the depot platform. The witness has been driving hacks and baggagewagons for his father N. Strong, sr., for upwards of 15 years previous to going into the saloon business a short time ago. On the stand Mr. Strong denied that he ever knew Eldo Timlin. He also denied ever having sold him or the Fitzmaurice boy liquor.

When the original Kotlewski case was under review in the municipal court, the defendant admitted in court so the record states, that his father-in-law, acting as his bartender, sold the liquor to Martin Moses, a posted person. The chief of police testified that he went into Kotlewski's saloon on Feb. 25 and found Moses standing at the bar with a half filled glass of beer in front of him. The only other customer in the saloon was a man who sat at a table 10 feet away.

On the stand Kotlewski denied admitting that his father-in-law sold liquor to Moses. He denied that Moses had ever been "posted" in any manner in his saloon. He denied that he ever sold him intoxicants in any manner, and asserts that the half glass of beer Hafsoos referred to belonged to the man sitting over at the table.

A remarkable feature of the defendants' testimony in all these cases is that, even though absolutely innocent, all profess to have believed it cheaper to plead guilty and pay a heavy fine and costs than to attempt to establish their innocence.

Mayor Walters wishes it stated that at the close of this trial tonight he will make a formal explanation of the stand he has taken in these cases and will outline his new policy for the regulations of the saloons of Stevens Point. In view of the circumstances it is expected there will be a large attendance at the meeting tonight.

**********

Gazette
(Stevens Point)
25 May 1910

ALL FOUND NOT GUILTY

All Saloon Keepers Charged with Selling Liquor Contrary to Law Are Acquitted

The council held adjourned meetings on Wednesday [18 May, 1910] and Thursday [19 May, 1910] evenings last. On Thursday evening the cases against three saloon firms, Strong Bros., Peck Bros. and August Kotlewski, were disposed of, all being acquitted of charges preferred against them.

Mr. Smith, of Madison, attorney for the W.C.T.U., who are prosecuting the cases, stated that the case against Shepreaux & Novak was first on the calendar. Mr. Sicklesteel their attorney, stated that Mr. Nowak was ill at home with rheumatism, presented a letter from the Drs. von Neupert to that effect, and asked that this case be placed at the foot of the calendar, which was done by mutual agreement.

Mr. Smith made a proposition that the hearing in the four cases before the council be adjourned until the first Tuesday in June, and that a writ of mandamus be asked from the circuit judge. Mr. Sicklesteel objected to a continuance to any specified date as Judge Webb will be busy with jury cases for at least two weeks, but would consent to adjourn these cases indefinitely.

Not being able to agree, the council proceeded to the trial of Frank and Nelson Strong, Jr., charged with selling liquor to Irving Fitzmaurice and Eldo Timlin, minors. After reading the records in court where these parties had plead guilty and paid a fine, Mr. Smith announced that his case would rest.

When Frank Strong was called to the stand, Smith objected to any testimony being introduced by the defendants, as their admission of guilt is conclusive and cannot be impeached or denied, and that anything to the contrary is incompetent and immaterial. The witness was allowed to answer in his own behalf and testified that he does not know Fitzmaurice or Timlin and never sold them liquor. At the conclusion of his testimony the council was a tie as to revoking the license, 6 to 6, the vote in favor of acquitting Strong Bros. being as follows: Ayes--Abb, Firkus, Heffron, Port, Schenk, Urowski. Nays--Altenberg, Cook, McDonald, Redfield, Scribner, Sparks. Mayor Walters decided in favor of the defendants.

The case of Peck Bros., charged with selling liquor to Carl Dake, a minor, was next called, Mr Smith making the same objections to testimony being introduced, but both defendants denied selling or giving liquor to Dake or knowing who he was. One of them, like all the other defendants, had plead guilty and paid his fine, as he "was advised to do so, because it would be cheaper than to hire an attorney and fight the charge." The council by a vote of 7 to 5 voted to discharge Peck Bros., Alterburg voting in their favor.

Aug. Kotlewski was charged with selling or giving liquor to Martin Moses, a blacklisted person, and Chief Hafsoos testified that he entered the saloon, found Moses with a partially filled glass of beer in front of him, and that Kotlewski later stated that his father-in-law had given Moses beer. This testimony was denied by Kotlewski, and at the conclusion Scribner moved that his license be revoked, which was seconded by Redfield, but the council was again a tie, the vote being the same as in the Strong case, and the mayor decided that the saloonkeeper should continue to do business at the old stand, corner S. Second and Clark streets.
Friday evening the one remaining case, that in which Shepreaux & Nowak are chrged with selling liquor to Hyman Fisher, a minor, was called. Mrs. Philomena MacMillan testified that in company with Mrs. Lee Betlach and John Donahue she went to the vicinity of the saloon, gave Fisher a bottle and ten cents and told him to go in and buy brandy. Fisher went in the front door, while Donahue entered at the rear. She had retained the bottle and contents, which she said contains brandy and produced the same in court. The witness testified that Shepreaux called on her later and offered $20 if she would drop the prosecution against him:; that he admitted selling the stuff to Fisher, and said that he couldn't support his family if she persisted in her determination to prosecute him.

When Shepreaux was called, Smith made the same objections to having him give testimony as he did with other witnesses on the previous evening, but no material questions were asked the defendant by the attorney on either side. Mr. Smith, attorney for the prosecurtion, after the testimony was closed, delivered a strong temperance lecture of about twenty minutes, denouncing the liquor traffic generally. All dealers, he said, are criminals and law breakers, some worse than others.

During the trial of all the six cases against the saloonkeepers, no evidence has been introduced by the prosecution to show that the complainants, members of the W.C.T.U. are or were residents of Stevens Point, and Mr. Sicklesteel, representing the saloonkeepers, gave his opponents a surprise that appeared to them like a flash of lightning from a clear sky.

The case of the state ex rel Mason vs. C.E. Boles, city clerk of Grand Rapids, et al., tried before the circuit court for the county of Wood, Hon. Charles M. Webb, presiding, was an action brought by Mason and Johnson, saloonkeepers of the city of Grand Rapids, for a writ of certiorari to reverse the decision of the common council of the city of Grand Rapids revoking the license of the said Mason and Johnson, for permitting gambling in their premises or appendages thereto. After the hearing of the case the council revoked the license and for the purpose of reviewing the decision of the council, the matter came up before Judge Webb. One point of the case before Judge Webb which is important in the Shepreaux case, Mr. Sicklesteel said, was the question as to whether or not the failure on the part of the plaintiffs to prove the allegation that they were residents of the city was material and that for want of such proof that the council did not have power or authority to revoke the license. Judge Webb in passing upon this point said, "The statutes referred to in effect provide that no person other than a 'resident' in the city can make the complaint necessary to set this proceeding in motion. The complaint in the present case alleges that the complainant was such resident. No evidence was offered at the trial tending to prove that fact, if it was the fact. Plainitffs (sic) in error urge that failure to prove the fact of such residence, constitutes a failure to prove a jurisdictional fact, without which the prosecution cannot stand. I have concluded to adopt this construction of the statute as the proper one, and so hold."

Notwithstanding the above clear-cut decision on the part of Judge Webb, and which Mr. Sicklesteel had kept "up his sleeve" for several days, the vote again stood a tie as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants, same as in the Strong case, and Mayor Walters again gave the defendants the benefit of his decision.

Before adjourning Mayor Walters said he believed the ladies of the W.C.T.U. were ill advised in bringing these cases to trial, and that the defendants had been trapped against all rules of fair play.