Litchfield enquirer., 1870-04-28
The Liquor Trials.
THE PROSECUTION UEsuccEssFun.


 THE PROSECUTION UNSUCCESSFUL
 The Superior Court was engaged, last week, in the trial of two of the liquor ca ses on our docket The first trial was re- garding cask of liquor found in the pos session of Walter Bristol of Norfolk, claim cd to have been kept by him for sale, and declared forfeited. by Justice of the Peace.
 It was proved that Bristol was liquor- seller, that he had an U s. license as such, that the cask in question was found secre ted in back-room of his store, that there was faucet in it, that it lacked some four gallons of being full. that decanters and glasses, the appliances for retail traffic, were found in the same room, and that Bristol denied having any liquor on the premises to the officers making the search. Bristol did not deny that he bought tue liquor in question for the purpose of sale. but claimed that it was not of the quality he wanted and that he had received no. tice to stop the sale of liquor, or he would be prosecuted, and that he had concluded to stop the traffic. He testified further, that about five days before the seizure, he had written to MT. Yale of Winsted, the agent of the New York firm from whom he had purchased the liquor, to take it back, that he had received Q reply directing him to send the cask to Wolcottville, and that he was about doing so at the time of the seizure MT. Yale confirmed Bristops statement, but neither of the letters was produced, although that from Yale to Bris- tol seems to have been in possession of the latter. The prosecution claimed that the whole matter about the pretended return of the liquor was an after thought. and that the letters, if written at all, were con- cocted after the seizure. The jury render ed a verdict in favor of Bristol.
 q The other case was against Moses 0. Camp, 8 druggist in Norfolk, for keep ing liquor with intent to sell. It appears that his liquor was first seiz- ed at the same time that Bristol's was tIken, but Justice Aaron Reyes, before whom the case was tried, decided that it was not forfeited. Afterwards it was seiz ed again, and the prosecution was with reference to alleged sales between the two I ssiznres. Four witnesses swora directly to sales made either to them or to others in their presence lone was sale to Justice 's Aaron Reyes, which that gentleman de- 70 nied). The gentlemen who were endeav- bring to stop the traffic in Norfolk swore that the prisoner refused to stop selling liquor, saying that his business would not otherwise support him. It was also claim cd that the difference in the. quantity of the liquor at the two seizures, indicated large intermediate sales. The prisoner and his brother swore, that after the first seizure, they had ceased all sales of 1iquor, .7 that they had given it away. occasionally, and had used it in conipoun ding med- icipe. but they specifically denied ma. king the sales charged. The jury went out few minutes, and returned with a verdict of acquittal.
 E The question in both cases being e ne of criminal intent, and the dealers swearing positively that they had no such intent, verdict for the State in either case would ? have also implied perjury on the part of Messrs. Bristol and Camps, so that the iury had their evidence on which to base their verdict. Nevertheless, we doubt whether q much stronger case can be m ade on be half of any liquor prosecution, than was made here. last week, against them. We jndge that it would have ensured conviction in any but a liqaor case Under our present law al lowing prisoners to testify, liquor trial reminds us of the old "wager of law" whereby the defendant, being man of suuques,ioned veracity. was allowed to swear himself clear of debt. no matter what number of witnesses the plaintiff could be able to offsr in proof of his case
 The jury was an unusually unfavorable one for the prosecution, being mostly De- mocrats. and half from this town; local- tywhose hostility tn the prohibitory law is pretty well understood. The cases had evidently been carefully prepared by MT. ED. Fyler of Winsted on behalf of the prosecution, and the facts were fully brought out and argued by Messrs. Fyler, Sedgwick. and G. o. Woodruff on behalf of the State; and Messrs. E. W. Seymour, Graves, and o. s. Seymour, for the de- feace. In closing the Camp case, the lat ter denounced the inquisitorial' nature of the law and of the proceedings under it, in very strong terms.
 AS The peaceful announcement comes by telegraph. that the Camanche and Kio
 va Indians are turning their attention to agriculture. May they "lay down