The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1883-07-24
LOUISIANA LOTTERY.
The Case Against j. West
Goodwin Called Yes
terday Afternoon.
The Defendant Found Guilty and
Fined the insignificant Sum
of One Dollar.

| forenoon, the case OF Tie state VS.. j. West
Goodwin, charged with publishing in the
/ BAZOO an advertisement of the Louisiana
state lott ~, contrary TO law, was called
Prosecuting Attorney Heard representing
the state, and John Montgomery, Jr., Ell.
Smith and Will. ID. Steele appearing for
Mr.. Goodwin.
The trial was by jury, the following gem
| tiemen serving as jurors: James Hanley,
W. w. McNulty, Robert III. Ramsey, Cord
Kruse, I. 5. Dusenberry and Vincent
Terry.
Ii was nearly ten o'clock when the prose-
cutting attorney picked us, the information
and read it 10 the jury, alleging that Mr..
Goodwin had Published in the BAzoo, on
the 18th day OF June, the Objectionable adj
vertisement.
The fist witness called was B. B. LYON.
who testified that he Was resident Of Sc
dalia and had been a patron OF the Louis
lana statt lottery for year past, and now
! had ticket in his pos, ssion. He had
never read the advertisement in the BAzOo,
and knew nothing in regard to the lottery
in question. He procured his tickets OF
Nj. A. Dauphin, of New Orleans, and was
ahead of the concern. as he had drawn two
prizes out OF three investments.
The witness was shown by the prOsecut.
ing attorney ticket and circular alleged
to have been 5, mt out by the Louisiana lot
terry company, end said they were similar
to those he had received from Mr.. Dau.
phin.
When il came to the cross-examination
the witness was asked only a couple Of
qu' stions By Mr.Montgomery and was then
excused.
Emmett Harris was the second witness.
He, too, said that the ticket exhibited by
Mr.. Heard was fac mile of those sent
out by tie Louisiana lottery company. He
had patronized the company every month
Tor year past and had drawn several
prizes. His correspondence in the pur-
chase of tickets was with Nj. A. Dauphin,
of New Orleans, but he hal never read the
advertisement published in the BAzOO, but
thought he first saw it in an Iowa paper.
He was ahead OF the lottery, and did not
think he had been swindled
Andy Gardelis, sworn, said he had been a
patron OF the lottery in question for ten
or twelve months, but had not been
so fortunate as some others, for he had
not drawn a prize every time. He
had known OF the Louisiana lottery for ten
years past, but did not remember having
rea0 its advertisement in the BAzOo. He
procured his tickets of NJ. A. DsuPhin,
New Orleans, and did not know whether
Gems. Early and Beauregard were the man.
ayers or not
Mr.. Heard said he would not offer fur
Their testimony, but desired to submit as
evidence COPY of the BAZoo containing
the advertisement and the ticket and circu-
lar above referred to.
Mr.. Montgomery objected to the ticket
and circular, saying that no testimony had
been introduced to show that they came
from NJ. A. Dauphin.
The court held as the defense was will
ing to admit the BAzoo containing the adj
vertisement as evidence, the circular and
ticket might also be admitted, as they did
not amount to anything at best.
Mr.. Goodwin was then place1 on the
stand and testified that he was the pub
Usher of the BAzOo and as such bad in
serted an advertisement of the Louisiana
state lottery. The advertisement came
from ]. II. Bates, of New York City, a reg
ular advertising agent, who had sent him
large amount of business. He had pub
lished the advertisement for four or five
years, but had never had any
or business relations with
NJ. A. Dauphin, Of New Orleans, the al
legged mai sger. He had seen the sdver-
lisement published in a large number of
papers throughout the state. He did not
know heoyas violating the law until be
met Mr.. Heard on the s.r ct and was per-
mit,ed to read the information which that
gentleman had sworn out, when he at once
ceased publishing the obnoxious advertise
nent, and it had not since appeared in the
BAzoo.
Mr. Heard was then sworn, and testified
hat he made the affidavit which led
% Mr. Goodwin's arrest. He was not
subscriber to the BAzoO, but his attention
had been called to the advertisement and
ne had purchased dozen copies OF the
PAPER containing it.
Mr.. Montgomery wanted to know the
lame OF the party who had called his at
ention to the advertisement, but Mr..
Heard decliued to answer. He finally said
hat it was newspaper man, but he
vas not connected with the Democrat,
neither did he reside in Selalia.
Still Mr.. Montgomery insisted
IN the informants name being
livulged, but Heard grew ex-
:ited and said he would rot in Jail before
he would answer the question.
The court held that the witness need not
answer, and the testimony proceeded, but
lothirg of importance was elected.
There was no further testimony for the
efense, and MIR. Heard made his argument
o the jury. and was followed by Messrs.
smith and Montgomery. The closing argu-
nent was of course made by
Ir. Heard, and it was about o'clock when
be case was given to the jury, who re-
nained out but short time and brought
n verdict of guilty, fixing the defend
nt's punishment at a fine of 81.
And so ended the great case out OF
hitch Mr.. Heard probably expected to win
lory and renown. The BAzOO will still
e published, and delivered every morning
y carrier at the rate of twenty-five cents
er week.