The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1881-08-19
State US. bloom.

S2s State VS.. bloom.
The first prosecution under tn: tempeiancelaw
DOS sed last winter WAS commenced last week.
On information the State by Deputy county at
tOrney W. G.. Mcdonald files u cOmplAinf before
Justice Boyd charging the defendant With sell
ing intnxicatinx liquors contrary to Jaw. The
ease WAS postponed from last week ana called
Tuesday forenoon. An adjournment was taken
to the court house. The state was represented
by county Attorney. o. Fife and deputy w: g ).
Mcdonald, assisted by Col q +: Smith: The
defendants counsel was Judge Goodin and III.
Richards.
composed Of the following named gentlemen:
John Arnett, T. Hutchinson, q. w. Apple. Ed.
Minor, a. f. Sweet, Robt. Cain, j. +. COlbOrn,
Thayer., j. +. Vanc,l, W j. Barteis, A. Myers,
Joha Everbeart, c. d. Elliot. Thos; Mcclure,
l.. Allen, Jacob Ladd, a. s. Hank:ns, q. r.
Canatsey, Z, Richardson, Harmon Scott and d.
The State and defense were entitled to, strike
of six apiece, and those left We're as follows: r.
Hutchinson, Ed. Minor, 4. Il. Sweet, Robert
H. Ladd, A. S, lIankins. g. K. Canatsey. Har-
mon Scott and u. c. Wood, who We're thereupOn
summoned by the constable. Adjourned till
Afternoon-D. C. Weed was excused by the
court aud j. H. Lsdd was away from home.
Theo. Strickland ard j. B. Myers were summon
ed to fill the list.
ON examination Theo. Strickland was excus-
ed by the court. having wagered u small sum on
the result; Judge Paxson was called. Mr. Van
Gil was excused for cause by the court. as he
thought the penalty was too severe ior .ns OF
had formed an opinion and he was excused and
Lyman E. Rhcsaes called. Mr.. Clark was ex-
cused, having formed an opinion, and Robert
opinion and he was excused. and H. Klaumann
called. He had formed an opinion and he was
excused: Mr.. Orr was called but excused as ne
had not been cltz n Sf tne SIaas , caed
HankiHs was excuse having formed an opinion
and J. W KestersOn called. Attorneys passed
The attorneys for the State waived their right
of challenge. Tie defense pre-emptorily excus-
ed W. A. Cowan. E. II. Funston was called,
but claimed his being.a State Senator exempted
but thought tne penalty too severe, and was ex-
cused. Ashley Bliss was summoned. Judge
FsXson was pre- emptOrily challenged by the de-
fnse.< A. Hartley was called, but Thought the
penalty too severe, and was excused. ID. Rob.
inson was called but had formed an opinion, and
John Woodin called. B. L. Wallis was pre-
emptorily challenged by the defense and Mr..
been resident of Allen county sufficient length
of time. j I. Lawrence was called but thought
the penalty about $50 too severe and was excus-
ed John Dean was called and be thought the
called but had formed an opinion: w. j. Huck
was called, but thought the penalty too severe.
Geo. w. likes. Mr.. Eckley and james Drake
penalty toe severe. j. E. Thorpe was called :.
Mr. Minor was pre-emptorlly challenged by the
defense. II. NJ. Stow was called. J. T.. Thorp
in his family. Samuel Malcomb called, and the
panel was filled. The jury were sworn to "well
and truly try. - etc.
In behalf Of the State, W. G. Mcdonald open:
ed the case. He spoke of the social features Of
the law, and brought up the manner in which
the law was adopted. Claimed that, as Il law,
its enforcement should follow. And that wheth-
should be prosecuted. The Stale expected to
prove that vast amount of beer was taken to
the defendants residence, and that many men
had made daily visits to that place for the pur-
pose of buying beer that they had bought beer.
The witnesses for the State were called, and
John Richards sworn. He was u resident OF
lola: acquainted with defendant; Friday night
week ago he was at Blooms house. Witness
was asked to state whether on that occasion he
purchased liquor of defendant. He was not able
to state He purchased something; it was
liquid; looked white from tcE to nearly bottom
of glass; looked like beer, sn'elled like beer:
tasted like beer. What did yOu III it? Did not
name it, and would not state. Site how much
you drank? Three glasses, On t, at occasion
any one? Objection made and long rguments
bv counsel on both sides followed. The theory
of defense was that witness need not testify to
anything that would crlmlnate himself; mat as
by buying of defendant; that a man who aids,
abets assists cannot be made to testify again
himself. The State claimed that if the argunlen.
was correct. no convictions could follow, which
was disputed bv defense, who claimed that
lockers on and not principals or abettOrs could
be found to testify. The court cautioned the
witness and told him he could answer the ques-
ton. In answer with ass stated he could not say
lust what was said. Further questions elected
that he called for beer; after some parey defend
ant tapped a keg of some liquid, drew OFT and
1,on ola nod for
dinner.
Afternoon Examination continued by county
attorney asking, when you asked for beer, did
YOU get what you asked for? Could not say it
was beer; did not think much about it; it did
not taste like beer that he had drank heretofore
and did not look like beer he had seen before.
He intended to buy beer when he went there:
MS1 not any
went there but once. ! bought what l went
there for; paid cents glass. No cross-examin-
alton by defense.
what shipments were received for defendant. In
his testimony stated that on the I'd and 9Th Of
August, Bloom receiveda key, weight 70 pounds,
were or who was the shipper. No crOss-examin-
Mr.. Gus Meister called and testified that he
delivered two kegs to defendant, but could not
say what contents were Had never drank beer
or anything else at blooms. No cross-examln-
alton.
Geo. MOurtant called. has resided IN county
four months, boarding. Had never bought beer
Of defendant. He had never had any left Tor
him at the yard or elsewhere. Question Was
any left for any one else? ObjectedtO by defense,
because the State had elected to stand by GER
tain specific case especially named rs to time
and place, and now could not throw out drag
net and include other times or places in the same
Indictment.
The State confessed that the law itself was
fear1ully and wonderfully made, but further
claimed that they should not be confined to a
specific case; that they were liable to be misn-
formed us to what u witness would testify. That
if one witness would not testify as they expected
they should introduce others until a case was
made. That they would not convict the Defend
ant of more than one 0fense, but of one they
would convict him. The defense thought the
law was not at fault but thai it was Q shame
and disgrace that the prosecution should be sum-
moned without the attorneys knowing them
selves Is to what their witnesses would testify.
1t Is their duty to know just what their witnesses
will swear to or not saddle large bill of costs
upon the county from acuriosity as to what men
might testify. Objection Overruled and witness
answered that not to his knowledge had any one
else received beer in that manner. He had been
at Blooms house but never bought any beer and
never drank any there. Not crOss-eNamined.
II arfc had hrou in az.