The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1881-08-11

1: paid Madden for it; Mr.. Falk told
me to pay Madden; have not bought
beer directly from Madden since the list
day Of May last.
Questioned by the Court-You say the
beer was delivered here through the ex.
press company? A. Yes, sir.
Cross-examined-Falk is a brewer; his
place OF business is in Kansas City, Mo,
and Milwaukee, Wis.
o. Pfeferle, being sworn, said-I
know Madden, and am acquainted with
his place of business; he does bust
ness in my cellar at 100 CONNER
cial street; his business is to take
orders from people for beer; do not
know of Macke getting any beer there
on or about the LIST of August; was not
present when Miller and Macke got beer
there on or about August list; never saw
those orders for that beer; the express
man delivers this beer to Madden;
sometimes got case of beer from him
by order; signed the orders for
beer; Madden made out the orders.
Q.-Is it not matter of fact that Mad
den orders carload of beer, and when
anyone wants any he delivers it TO them I?
A. Not that know Of
Cross-examined-I gave Madden Or
ders to send to Falk for the beer got :;
it was for my own use.
Miller was recalled and testified: l
said it was in June bought that beer; l
bought case once in awhile; it was
genuine beer.
Q. Was that beer in your opinion IN
toxicating? A. l drank it myself and
never got tight"
O. If person would drink enough of
that beer don't you think it would intox-
icate: A. don't knowi
Q. Was there any malt in it? A.
Yes, could smell that.
Cross-examined-I live three doors
north of Brewers butcher shop; l keep
a boarding house; Madden is agent for
Mr.. Falk.
@. Docs Mr.. Madden hold himself out
as an agent for Mr.. Falk? A. Mr.
Falk said Madden was his agent. We
were all together when he said so.
Court adjourned till o'clock Tues
day morning.
Court convened at s this morning
O.. Pfefferle was recalled and testified
that Madden took orders for Mr.. Falk
for beer; witness paid Madden for it !;
Madden did not exactly say he was an
agent for Falk, but that he just took Or
ders for beer; don't know whether the
beer got was Milwaukee beer or not; I
don't know whether it was the same
Carl Miller got Or not.
Q. Do you know Milwaukee beer
when you taste it? A. / never drank
much Milwaukee beer; always sold ST.
Louis beer when I was in the saloon
business.
Q. Was this not the same article you
sold before the first of May as Milwau-
kee beer? A. l never sold much Mil
waukee beer.
Q. Was this beer you bought of Mad
den genuine beer? A. 1t was no ac-
count; Madden allowed me a discount
on it.
@. Was it not the beer you used in
your family? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you return any of it TO MFR.
Falk? No, sir
@. Was not this beer what you used
to know as Milwaukee beer? A. I gen.
orally always drank Schmidt's beer;
don't know the difference between
Schmidrs beer and Milwaukee beer ;
there ought to be malt in all beer, but l
don't know whether there was any in
the beer I got or not; don't know wheth-
er this beer had any hops in it or not; I
am no brewer; don't know whether beer
can be made of hops without being fer
mented.
Cross eXamined-I never bought any
beer direct from MT. Madden; I left my
orders with him, as agent of Mr.. Falk,
and what beer / got was through Mr..
Madden as Falk's agent.
Counsel then made their arguments
and the Judge charged the jury as fol-
lows:
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY.
The jury are instructed that if they
believe, from the evidence, that Frank
Madden sold intoxicating liquors at 100
Commercial street, Emporia, Kansas,
since the LIST of May last, and prior TO
| August 1, 1881, they viii find the de-
PENDANT guilty.
The jury are further instructed that
any shift or device to evade the provis-
deemed an unlawful selling within the
| provisions of the act, and if the jury be.
lieve from the evidence that the orders
| taken by Madden were taken as mode
| to evade the law, and not in good faith
fair business transaction, then the jury
must find the defendant guilty if they
| find such sale.
The jury are further instructed that il
they believe from the evidence that the
defendant as agent for one Falk, a
| brewer in Milwaukee, took orders for
the purchase of beer and that said order
was sent to Falk, and the beer sent by
! CApACSS OitCCb W tktC pdAJtCS 1dklItS tIAc
| order, then and in that case the transac.
tion constitutes sale in Milwaukee and
not in Kansas, but if the beer was con
| signed TO defendant as the agent OF
Falk and by him delivered to the par
ties making the order and the money
paid TO defendant, then it is sale in
Kansas within the meaning of the act.
The jury are further instructed thai
| lager beer is an intoxicating liquor un
der the statute.
If the jury find from the evidence
that the sale was made in Milwaukee
and not in Kansas, then as matter OF
law that would not constitute shift OF
device to eyade the provisions of the
| prohihitory law.
You are instructed that the defendant
is on trial for selling intoxicating liquors
| at No. 100 Commercial street, in the city
of Emporia; but unless you believe be
lieve, beyond all reasonable doubt, that
the defendant did sell intoxicating liq-
uors in the cellar basement at No. 13(
| Commercial STREET, as charged in the
complaint, then and in that case you will
find the defendant not guilty.
In this case the law presumes the de
PENDANT innocent, and this legal pre-
sumption continues until every material
fact alleged in the complaint is estab
lished beyond all reasonable doubt.
You are instructed that though you
may believe that every material fact in
i the complaint has been established by
the evidence by clear pTeponderance
of the testimony by evidence enough TO
warrant you, if this WIS civil case, to
find foE the plaintiff yet that is not suf
flcient to convict the defendant; for be
fore You can convict the defendant every
material fact in the complaint must bG
established beyond all reasonable doubt
The jury retired and in about fifteen
minutes returned and s. B. Warren
foreman Of the jury, announced that they
found the defendant not guilty as
charged.