The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1881-06-16
Court Of Common Pleas.

SVuA VI SVMuhVh lCuCs
State of Ohio VS.. Albert Castor. In
dictment for selling Intoxicating IL
quor to Frank Donnally, to be drunk
where sold. Plea not guilty. Jury
trial. The Indictment charged that
the liquor had been paid for in money.
while the evidence showed that it had
been paid for in scrip. Verdict not
guilty.
Same VS.. same. Selling liquor to
Tazewell Douglas. Verdict guilty.
Same VS.. same. Selling spurious
liquors to Henry Howe, on Sunday.
Verdict guilty.
Same VS.. same. Selling liquor to
Frank Donnally. Jury failed to agree,
and discharged, and case continued.
Same VS.. same. Nuisance keeping
a room, &c. This Indictment limited
the offense to the month Of March.
While the jury was being impanneled,
counsel for defendant withdrew his
plea of not guilty, and entered plea
of guilty.
Same VS.. same. Indictment for sell
ling spirituous liquors on Sunday.
VIM. Teet testified to buying two
glasses of whisky on Sunday, at a
place, and from a man, neither of
which he could we'll describe, he being
a stranger. There was man with
him, who showed him the place
Tazewell Douglas testified that he was
the man, and saw Teet buy the whisky
from Castor, and pay for it, on Sum-
day, March 13, 1881.
In all these cases the Court charged
the jury that where it is proven that
whisky is sold, the law implies thai
it is both spurious and Intoxicating
and if there should be any kind Of
whisky that is not intoxicating, it de-
volved upon the defendant to show
that fact. Verdict guilty.
Same VS.. same. Indictment for sci.
ling to Frank Donnally, on Sunday
Plea Of not guilty withdrawn, an6
plea of guilty entered.
Same VS.. same Indictment fol
selling liquor on Sunday to John Con
rad Frank Donally testified that he
Conrad and others, were at Castor
saloon on Sunday, and Conrad called
for whisky, and some parties go
whisky, but he was not sure that Con
rad got any. The parties who ge
the whisky got it in bottles. Conra'
testified that he did not buy or ge
} any whisky on that occasion. Th
Prosecuting Attorney entered molle
State Of Ohio VS.. Azilka A. Busey
: Bigamy. The first witness was Jane
. Everson. Reside in Wells township
} Jefferson county, Ohio. About tn
, first of January, 1872, was called t.
the residence of my father-in-law, VIII,
was then a justice of the peace fo
that township. He asked me to G,
to his house to witness marriage
Saw my father-in-law marry Ephrain
Busey and the defendant, Azilk
Kelly. She was mere child-per
haps not over fifteen years of age.
Mrs. Everson, wife of last witness
testified substantially the same as he
husband-was at the marriage, AM
positively Identifies the defendant a
the same person who was then an
there married.
Henry G. Ashby sworn. This be
ing the present husband of the accus
ed, objection was made to his compe
tency, and objection sustained.
= Judge Evans called, and produce,
, the marriage record, but it showed
: marriage between Ashby and Kelly
e Objection was made, and the witnes
/ stood aside, and J. K. McClung wa
7 called. Witness is justice of tn
1 peace for this county, and he marie,
r Ashby and the defendant. Had. Ii
e cense from the Probate Judge. Th
!. Woman's name in the license is Ann
l Kelly. The license was read to tn
/. Jury, and also the record in the Pro
? bate Court. The lcence for the mar
riage to Bucey, in Jefferson county
, signed and sealed by Judge Martin
r then Probate Judge Of Jefferson coun
ty, was read to the jury.
A witness named Ashby, testified
that he had frequently been at th'
house Of defendant and her husband