Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1870-07-28
Those Fines.


We are at loss to know why Judge
Stafford, at the late court, assessed fine
Of fifty dollars each, upon two persons,
for violating the liquor law, while in Sev.
eral other cases he assessed fines ol five
dollars for the same Offence, remarkng
emphatically thnt this tS5) was the lowest
fine he could assess under the law. 1
friend at our elbow suggests, as the reas
OH, that The men who were fined filty dol
lars sold very Indifferent article Of whis-
KY Faystte Herald.
The editor of the Herald has evidently
allowed some aspiring ''penny.n liner" to
vcntilute his legal acumen through the
columns Of his paper, and to vent his
spleen upon the Judge referred to, for his
temerity in deciding certain points Of law
against him, The $50 fine is the forrest
the law allows for keeping house for the
sale Of liquors, and the SIS fine the lowest
the law allows for the selling Of Liquor
The parties referred to in the above para
graph had all ceased, for some time preyi.
Gus, their violations Of the law, and the
Judge feeling that tho obi cts Of the law
had been accomplished by the parties
stopping their business, felt no disposition
10 prosecute them to the furtherance of the
wishes of any clique of rejudicel men
who allowed their feelings to carry them
so far rs TO infringe upon the rights Of
their fellow citizens, As the law lcftthe
matter at the discretion Of the Judge, we
10 not see the right OF any lawyer to die
tnte as to his course.-C -Chiiiicothe GSsstts.
Our gallant neighbor Of the Gazette was
undoubtedly relieved from the necessity
Of employing some aspiring penny.a liner to
furnish him. with the above sage strict.
nres on our brief paragraph 1t was un
questiOnably gratuttY from some AstutC
pillar Of justice who has acquired an env.
able reputation in certain quarters for his
notorious desecRtions of the Sabbath. The
writer attempt to justify the decision Of
the court in assessing low fines upon a
mere hypothesis. He stys ."ths parties
referred to Aad all ceased for some time
previous their tiolations Of the law" We
should be heartily glad if this were true.
But thcGcts justify no such assertion, 1t
is true, however. that the two individuals
fined fifty dollars each have quit. But it
is not true that the other individuals fined
five dN iTS each for selling liquor have
~ Qltseldng. One of the three indiyidu-
al% fined only IS, because, as the writer
erNNeously alleges, "he had quit some
time previous" was arraigned before Judge
Dickey, at the spring term Of CouIt, and
was fined $50 for violating the liquor law.
and was only saved the inhiction Of II term
in the county jail by reason Of a pledge
eyacted Of him by Judge Dickey that he
would not again violate the law in this
respect, which pledge he made reluctant
ly, and, doubtless, with peculiar mental
reservations.
We feel it due to the editor Of the Gazette
to exhonerate him from intentionally mis-
the facts in this case; because
his opportunities for knowing whether
these men had quit the liquor trafiic are
not as good as those Of the Honorable court.
The Court undoubtedly "undcrstaads her.
'b!' Hence the court "felt no DISPOSE
ion to prosecute these liquor dealers to the
'urtherhnce of the wishes of any clique of
men," No; he did not want
.ho sacred rights Of these violators of the
liquor law restrained. Therefore their fine
vas put by the kind.henrted judge at the
rnte.