The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1881-01-20
"BEER HAHR.n
SUI Gloss Logger-No Pretzel-A De-
tectire ~ 1o,un-Chas. Chase and
Ben Langdon Prosecuted for Selling
Bcer-EIcitemaen at the ''Hub."

| tecttCe ~ 1OlDn-Ch0S. chase and
Ben Langdon Prosecuted for Selling
Beer-E1citemert at the Hub"
For a week past the ''hub': has been
agitated from spindle to periphery over
a series Of liquor prosecutions. Chas.
Chase was arrested for selling and dis
posing of beer without license, tie &C.
tion being brought under the State
law. Ben Langdon was arrested twice
on two separate charges for selling the
same seductive commixture.
The action against Chase was brought
befor Justice Humiston and a change
of venue taken, so that the case came
up on Monday before Justice Durfees
H. ]. Ludlow was the complaining wit
ness and a detective named Orson
Crissey, from Fayette, Iowa, was the
informer Oh whose testimony Chase
was convicted. A jury was empannell-
ed consisting of NJ. p. Mann, Ed. Bu-
chan, S. V. Wykoff, r. F. Baker, J. p.
Moulton, VIM. Madison, J. Craft, II.
H. Anderson, Joe Loveless, Eugene
Golf and Frank Safer. County Attor-
ney Wilson conducted the case on be-
half of the State and D. Rohrer appear
ed for the defense.
The case was given to the jury on
Tuesday and a verdict of guilty was re-
turned. The Justice fined the prisoner
$25 and assessed the costs at $2s. An
! appeal was promptly taken with T. II.
Parsons and d. Rohrer as bondsmen.
Chase was promptly arrested on anoth-
er charge Of selling on the 11th..
In the case or cases Of Ben I.angdon
| a change of venue was also taken and
the first case came up before Justice
Durfee on Tuesday. Adjourned to
next week.
III the Chase case, Mr.. Crissey swore
that lie went to Chase and asked for
beer. A bottle was setting on the ia
bic and he poured out a glass and drank
it, and paid Chase for it. He then
went away and returned in few mir
utes with {, bottle which Chase filled
and took pay for that also.
Mir. Chase swore that Crissey came
in and said lie had been showed up and
wanted some liquor. Chase told him
he did not sell, but kept beer for his
own use, and lie allowed Crissey to help
himself to Il glass. He also afterwards
allowed him to take some away in 4
bottle, and that he took no pay for the
beer. Mr.. Kline, who was at Chase's
when Crissey appeared, testified SUBJ
stantialIy to the facts given 10y Chase.
Detective Crissey claims to haye been
engaged in the business of Il liquor de-
tective in Iowa. It was claimed by
some of those engaged in the prosecu-
that lie was one Of Pinkert0n'S detec.
tives. A despatch. WAS sent to Chicago
inquiring as to this and the following
answer WAS returned:
CHICAGO, Dec. Is, 1881.
To I. II. Parsons:
Tie man Crssey, claiming to work
for me, is Il fraud. He is not known to
me nor does he serve me. Think would
give Crissey ducking in first pond.
ALLAN PINAERTON.
So he evidently does not belong to
Pinkerton's force. But that lie is Il
whisky detective and that lie is getting
three dollars !, day for his work here,
there is no doubt.
LATER
Since the above was written, COM
plant was entered before Justice Carr,
at Adrian, charging Orson Crissey, tue
detective, with perjury. Accordingly
he was arrested 10y Sheriff Miller and
taken to Adrian on the afternoon
train. A number of our people went
over to be present at the examination.
The end is not yet. Both sides ap-
pear determined to push this matter to
the bitter end. The excitement grow
lug up is to lie deplored. The anti-pro-
hibitionists are uttering curses, not
loud but deep, at what is called unfair
ness, illegality. prejudice, ETC., of the
temperance element. Their methods
are condemned in strong terms.
Meanwhile, we shall endeavor to
keep our readers posted and give both
sides h-aring.
Our own view is that if the law has
been violated by selling liquor, all the
violators should be fined. On the other
hand, any efforts of the temperance ele-
ment to bulldoZe or to convict outs ide
of law, or any attempt to screen their
favorites. ought to be met by a firm and
determined opposition.
AMENDING THE VILLAGE CHARTER
There is some talk of petitioning
the Legislature for an amendment of
our village charter, which, it is claim
ed, is now both too stringent and too
ambiguous on the subject of liquor
selling. Section ii provides that
n" license for the selling Of wine,
beer, or cider, or spirituons intoxica-
ting, alcoholic, vinous, fernented. malt
or mixed Intoxicating liquors. liquids
or drinks as beverage shall be granted
to any person within the corporate linz
it's Of saidvilage. And no person shall
vend, deal in. or for the purposes of e.
vading the provisions Of law or this act,
EtVtdNdy III ulSl"'Se " vi any pitttAI
whatever any Of the aforesaid liquors.
liquids or drinks within such corporate
limits.
In section Is, it provides that the
common council shall have authority
by ordinances, rules, regulations or by
laws
T" restrain any person from vending,
giving or dealing in spirituous. intox-
icating, Alcoholic. malt or mixed. fer
mented or vinons liquors or drinks,
unless duly licensed by the common COM
ell.
This is an iron clad charter and
makes any one liable who even gives a.
way Il glass of cider. The clause in
J. section 16 seems to imply that the CON-
mon council may grant license while