Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1879-02-28

!
EssEr JUNCTION, Feb. Gath, 1879
| To the Editor of the Free Press and Times.
| In your daily issue of the 10Th instant.
you publish letter signed "R," relating
to what he sees fit to call our astonishing
verdict" in the case State W. W B. Nichols,
and making insnuatiGns and statements
therein which We feel in duty bound to our
selves to correct. We are not responsible
for the Clippers article and Go not approve
it; but, taken as whole, it is more truthful
than the statements contained in RS"
letter. The position of jurvmen in JUS
tice cur. is by no means pleasant one
and in this case We would gladly have been
excused, but the law and court said mo,
and VIC were compelled to act. If "R. is
not sati- fed with our decision We are sorry.
But a. he says 1.-The end Is not yet he will
probably have an opportunity Ito try his
hand as juryman, and in that case justice
for once will be done.
This case was liquor prosecution against
w. d. Nichols who Is carrying on the bust
ness Of druggist at this place. The specifca-
ton contained the names of fourteen wit
nossss and as something remarkable in such
class of cases, every witness who was sub
IWlaed arr ard. r.0 Of the witnesses how
ever. wa...,d IN the subj osnas were away and
were no: ubI udaed. and conse Guently did
not attend, and one who was present dur
ing a part Of the trial Was not present
when his name was called, and did not tes-
THY ,-eleyen witnesses only testiiying in
the case. So much for RS" insinuations
that more offences would undoubtedly have
been proven, II all tho witnesses suhIUnaed
had been present.
That there was much feeling manifested
in the case was very evident. and it appear
ed TO us that the prosecution was prompted
by malice. and was entirely uncalled Tor.
Tie States Attorney, however. managed
the case for the State in thorough and
gentlemanly manner.
Nothing was claimed by the State upon
the testimony of the eleven witnesses who
testified, except upon the evidence of c. r.
Day, 4. X. Williams and Thomas Rolcau,
the States Attorney claiming nothing up
on the testimony of Z. Il. Williams, as his
evidence developed the fact that the two
purchases which he made were in.a medical
prescription. The evidence of c. K. Day
was to the Z, feet that ho bought a mixture
of Jamaica ginger and gin it at one time
for medicine. The Jury determined
that this was no violation of the law.
L. h. Williams testified that he had got
liquor there three tim,s, that ne had
helped himself without the knowledge of
the respondent, and that the respondent
had never sold him any. We found no
violation Of the law in this instance.
Thomas Roieau testified that he had pur-
chased liquor there thirteen different times.
1t was proved that Roleau and the respon-
dent were at enmity with each other and |
that ROleau had on several occasions made |
threats against Nichols aud, further,
Roleau, who was present during the trial,
was very othcious in the prosecution a |
position so inconsistent with his life and |
habits that it WAS homogeneous in the ex-
treme. The respondent denied the sales to |
Roleau.
This was substantially the case 90 pro-
scented to US. Our verdict was, mot guilty."
and in so delivering it, we feel that the law |
fully just.fies US, if ST." does not.
VIM. Fletcher, Foreman William Folsom,
l.. ii. Taylor, W. j. Beach, W. Z. |
Wiley, ID. j. Hunter