The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1867-04-06
Municipal Court.

JUDGE KINGsBURY PRESIDING.
FRIDAY.-In the case of State vs.. John and VIII
liam Taylor for alleged larceny of money from Israel
Hague, the complaint was withdrawn, the matter
having been settled by the parties.
The search and seizure OF State v. Messrs
Purington and Butler, came up
A motion was made to quash the complaint. 1st
Because it sets forth offence known to the laws OF
this State. 3D. Because there was no sufficient war
rant in said Sd, Because the warrant does not
command any officer having power to serve criminal
process to search the premises described and special
ly designated in said complaint; does it command
said officer to search any premises at ali.
Judge Kingsbury reserved decision upon the mo-
ton to quash, and suggested a continuance of the
case until he could look up the authorities Counsel
for respondents concluded, as they had good de-
fence, to proceed with the examination.
The testimony for the State showed that barrel of
whiskey seized in the cellar of the store occupied
by the respondents. There were measures glass
es or anything else found that would tend to show
that the liquor intended for sale. Deputy Mar
shall Wentworth testified that he had his attention
called by Mr. Butler one of the defendants to a cask
te third story of the building that had some chalk
marks ron It. He examined it, but found nothing
in it, the smell was as he thought, that of liquor
For the defence, Mr.. Butler testified that he knew
nothing about the barrel OF whiskey; he had no own
ership in it, and it did not belong to the firm The
barrel in the third story to which he had directed the
attention of the officers had contained petroleum
fluid The firm had never purchased dealt in spir-
ituous liquors. t- h'.ff. ...i .
Messrs Morse and Lothrop testified that for about
eight months they occupied tie second story OF the
store of Messrs. burlington and Butler and that it
connected directly with the third story. That they
the premises Mr.. Lothrop said he had seen lamps
filed from the barrel in the third story, and that its
contents were burning fluid of some description.
Mr.. Pu1;ngton, of the defendants testified thai
he owned the barrel of whskey that had been seized
That he purchased it for his usc and slowed i,
away in the cellar of the store for it to ripen He
had by the advice of two physicians, used whiskey
| for complaint with which he was troubled, and
| which medicine he had ever tried would relieve
He had twice let two Of his friends have some
whiskey for medicinal purposes, but not within sis
| months past He not in the habit of selling the
article and all that he had had for several years pas
| was two barrels. ..4...... .......
On cross examination Mr.. PuringtOn stated thu
names of the persons to whom he had sold the whis
key. t.-I ,1lHt 't 90
A. A. Strout, ESQ.,, OF the firm of Messrs. Shepley
& Str ,ut, appeared for the respondents He contend
ed that the State had entirely failed in making out
case against the respondents. This prosecution, h
said did not originate with the police officers wht
had conducted the matter in gentlemanly manner
and who were efficient they should be, in having
the statute enforced The prosecution was got up BY
those opposed to the prohibitory law, from motives
personal spite against the respondents, and with
view to bring the law into disrepute. There was n,
evidence that the article kept for sale or that an,
| sale had been made within six months, The onl,