Show I 1 1121 WHOSE A I 1 E CUE IS S IT last week we printed a leport of what we regarded as a grave brior en or on the part ot of the city justice of 0 the peace in imposing a trifling g it fine ne upon a firm guilty of selling liquor on sunday and to minors there Is another chapter to that story somebody else has not done his duty and if we we wore were sure who it is we should print his name As it is we re shall be content with giving the facts in the case when this matter was originally reported to us it was done with the hope that we would give it to the light 0 of day the sources of our information are good but some things were taken for granted and a slight error crept into the report for instance we were told plainly that a fine had been imposed upon two counts selling liquor on sunday sunda and selling gelling liquor to minors minors and that the docket entry in the justices court so stated dut but the entry did not so state here is a verbatim copy brigham city vs peter wn ion n SELLING LIQUOR ON ST SU iNAY iNDAY 5 it remembered that on the day of july 1907 personally appeared before this court and plead guilty to selling liquor or beer on sunday contrary to the ordinances of this bilg liam ham city the court imposed a fine of ten tell dollars the same was paid and defendant discharged that Is the way the docket read within forty eight hours of the time when the case was reported and it has not been changed if the officers cerr B had a clear case against the saloon men of selling liquor to minors why they been brought up on that charge whose duty Is it to attend to the matter it looks like its up to the city fathers to determine it a case that is a dead mortal cinch cannot at least be brought into court there must be something wrong with the municipal machinery the justice erred in the first instance and he acknowledges it but v whose liose cue is it to act now |