The daily gazette., 1877-11-20
Proceedings of Court

YESTERDAYS PROCERINGs-A BATCH
OF LIQUOR CAsEs-A TEST CAsE-CI-
DER DECIDED TO DE AN INTOxICAT-
ING BEVERAGE. 81 ~o+
Specially Reported for the GAZETTE.
New CASTLE, November 49,.
1.-THE opening proceedings were pub
lished in a late edition of the GAZETTE.
The subsequent proceedings are as fol-
lowsl:
The first case was that of State VS..
Peter Babcock, for selling liquor to Jo-
seph Valentine without license. There
being no defense the jury Immediately
retired. ~.
A second Indictment was found against
his gentleman for selling liquor 10 Jo-
seph Valentine on the 18th of January.
In both cases the jury rendered YER
dict Of guilty, and he was sentenced to
fine of $50 and to pay costs Of prosecution
| in each case.
State VS.. Charles Dorshell, for selling
| liquor without license, was found guilty
and was sentenced to pay fine of $100
and costs OF prosecution.
State VS.. Caroline Klinger, for selling
liquor without license; plead guilty. She
was sentenced to pay fine of $50 and
costs of prosecution. n 4 r. .tTt
Mary A. Moerk was summoned under
] five indictments. She plead guilty to
three. She was sentenced to fine $50
and costs of prosecution in each case, and
a nolle pros. was entered on the remain
ing two.
The criminal list was taken up and
acted upon.
| At 1.30 the court took recess until
O'Clock in the afternoon.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
At 3 O'Clock court re-assembled. The
Grand Jury answered to their names and
retired. 'if... -..-.. -..,r -
State VS.. James Mcveigh for selling
liquor without license. Found gully
| under two indictments, and sentenced to
a fine of $50 and costs of prosecution in
each case. '-'5 oJHJJ "F .'' 90
| State VS.. James Gilmore, of White
Clay Greek Hundred under three indict-
ments for selling liquor without license
to Alfred Ruth. q = .AyN4 ! r .94
At this juncture the grinding process
of the mill of justice came to a dead lock
> owing to the fact that the principal wit
ness, Mr.. Alfred Ruth, had disappeared.
The gentleman, however, after short
! time, returned and the proceedings con-
| tinued.
MIR. Gilmore was found guilty and sen
fenced to pay fine of $50 and costs.
i AS Mr.. Alfred Ruth. was about tc
leave the witness box the court Informed
I him that he had some business with him.
/; He asked the gentleman for his excuse
: Tor his nou-appearance when called up
g on. AS the excuse was not deemed suf
e ficient the court informed Mr.. Ruth tina
he was fined the costs of his attachment
= and was placed in the care of the Sheriff
e until said sum was forthcoming. g.
AS this gentleman had been someW ha
tacetlous in delivering his testimony tn,
change this piece of information mad.
e upon his countenance may be compared
e to md day sun disappearing behind &
3 bank of Egyptian darkness.
8 State VS.. Edward Haughey for selling
e liquor withouta license, plead guilty.
l. Mr.. Grubb in behalf of the defendan
stated that the gentleman had applied t.
y the last Legislature for a special act il
,e his favor, to allow him to sell liquor un
i der a license which had been signed b,
rs much smaller number of freeholder
d than th at required by law, as there wer
ID not sufficient number of freeholders Il
l. the district. The act passed the House
< and had reached and was being decides
u. u upon by the Senate, when it was discov
,e cred that in-that case one must not NJ
< cessarily be freeholder. The defehdar
le in the meanwhile had seen it publishe
in the papers through mistake that th
Id act had passed both houses. He ther,
sn fore continued to sell, and at the time
an the indictments was laboring under th
ID delusion that he was selling within t. b
s. statutes of the law.
y, a verdict of guilty without leaving tt
n, box. The defendant was sentenced
En- IN nav a fine of $50 and costs of prosec
he ton.
'e The Grand Jury, with true bills, r
he turned from their chamber and were di
u charged until tomorrow morning at
Ill | o'clock.
of State VS.. Edward J. Haughey tor sci
"a "a ing liquor without license, prior
he May term of Court.
re The prosecuting attorney,ln his eharf
at to the Jury, referred them to I'll
n thought put forth by some, that should
year expire the delinquent goes scot fre
d He cautioned them against this fallac
M | and said that should the breach be COT
eS es mitted in 1876, the person by this a
by comes within the provisions of this la,
he and is as liable to punishment as is I'll
Ire man who sins at more recent date.
m George W. Smith, sworn:-testified
ITO to knowing the defendant, and as to pu
u chasing liquor there; thought that
y, must have been mistaken; for he hs
~ told the Grand Jury that it was ale
I'd. porter, but now thought it cider; knew
would intoxicate if he drank enough
!. it.
Witness interrogated by the Court:
"How much did you drink ?"
"There were four or five of US"
Chow much did you drink ="
ay "One drink"
ng GLOW much is one drink-a glassf
ns' or a half gallon?" IE
m "About glassful."
,h' Cross-examined by Mr.. Vallandigha
q an Asked for cider; 1t was poured out OF
ne demijohn; think it was cider.
ny Mr.. VailandighaIl opened for the
ne Tense. He thought that the case W
III plain, and thought 1t was understoo
ed that a mistake had been committed; tn
Id the defendant had been indicted for 8
Sc: ling Intoxicating liquor; witness ask
nd for cider and received it. There is
liz evidence presented which shows a VIC
- Jion of the law.
u Che prosecuting attorney in openl