OCR Text |
Show INTERESTING LIQUOR CASE. On the 14th last? a complaint was filed before Judge Cranney, alleging that John Archibald had sold ??ifatuous, malt, or fermented liquors, on or about the 3d and 8th days of November A.D.; 1881, contrary to the city ordinance in such case made and provided, &c." Mr. Archibald was arrested and the trial was set for 2 p.m., November 15th. The defendant, however, desired a postponement until the same hour next day, which was granted. On Wednesday the 16th, at 2 p.m. the council room in the city hall was crowded at the opening of the proceedings. The defendant had employed Messrs. A.B. Taylor and Mark Fletcher to defend him. The prosecution was represented by Mr. B.F. Cummings, Jr. The defense commenced by petitioning a demurtif? on the ground that the offense was not sufficiently described in the complaint and on the further ground that two distinct dates were given as those on which the offense was committed. After arguments from both sides, the court overruled the demurrel?, and the defense excepted. The prosecution waived a jury, but the defense insisted on a full panel, and a recess was taken for one hour to enable a jury to be summoned. At 1 o'clock the jury selected by the Marshal were in attendance, and after an examination by the attorneys were all accepted with the exception of one who was peremptorily challenged by the defense. The principal witness for the prosecution was Mr. W.J. Hill. His evidence showed that, on the evening of Nov. 2d he went to Mr. Archibald's home; taking with him a bucket holding about three quarts, and asked Mr. Archibald to let him have some beer. Mr. Archibald took the bucket, left the room, and in two or three minutes returned with the bucket filled. Mr. Hill tendered the cash in payment, but Mr. Archibald told him he would trim the price of the beer, ????? towards paying for a bed bought in the Latter's ??? of business?. The bucket containing most of the beer bought, was shown to the Jury. The same witness stated that, on or about the 8th last, Mr. Archibald had treated him to a drink of whisky. This was the second count? in the complaint. The defense endeavored to prove by the defendant and his stepson, Hyrum? Bunce?, that no price had ever been received for the beer, directly or directly, and that, in the bed transaction, the price of the beer was not taken into account. The witness for the prosecution and the defendant contradicted each other hotly? on this point. The defendant admitted having let witness have the beer, but said witness obtained it on the ???? that his wife was sick and needed it. Mr. Hill denied positively? having made any such a ???? representation. Here again there was a ????? ???????? between the two. When the prosecution asked to have Alfred Lundberg? sworn as a witness; that ?????? ?????, who had been ???? subpoenaed, flatly refused to be sworn. He appeared to be very nervous ??? excited. The judge [next couple of lines unreadable] supposed he would be ?????. The Judge read the statute which provides for a fine of $50?, and, one day's imprisonment. The witness asked the Judge to please read that again. The latter complied. The witness then complied? to be sworn. The prosecution elicited nothing in particular from him, however. After the testimony was all in Mr. Cummings occupied a few moments for the prosecution and was followed by Mr. A.B. Taylor for the defense who occupied? about ?? minutes, during which he ?????? the validity of the city ordinance, Mr. Cummings replied ???? the sum ???? and the evidence showing an unusually? Strong case for the prosecution, and reminding? the jury that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the validity or invalidity of the ordinance their duty having singly to find a verdict in accordance with the law ????? and the evidence that had been ??????. The jury were out about 21 minutes and brought in a verdict of guilty, but recommended defendant to ???? money? of the Court. The fine was fixed at ??? ???? ???????, which will probably not much more than cover them. During the trial Mr. Taylor took numerous exceptions to the rulings of the court, and gave notice of an appeal. |