Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1883-04-03

never asked for box marked wv ala
not know the contents OF any OF these
boxes. aud had no conversation with lila
in regard to contents.
Ny boy delivered box to Irving hehni-
son, on written order Of Wallace Richard
son. Boxes were received addressed TO
wv. II. Rogers" and &C. II. Stevens"
with orders from Whitney, to deliver to
Wallace Richardson. Books show entries
of receipt, delivery, &C., as in the ether
cases.
Nov. %, received box addressed wv.
b. Weed" charges $3.50, delivered 10
George II. Sinclair, on order of Whitney;
no other box delivered to Sinclair. He
called 10 evening; asked for express; paid
charges, at my desk, went through house
to the stable and got box. Had not noti'
aed him that box was there; he lives u or
II miles from office; we had no converse
ton Ia regard to contents OF box, ana
did not know what box contained.
never received any compensation on
these packages other than commission on
express charges, in regular line OF busi-
ness. Have never sold any liquor TO any
| body between dates mentioned In indlct-
ment, nor at any other time. Never sold
any packages which came through ex-
press; never delivered any packages TO
any party unless so ordered, either by adj
dress or by special order of shipper, in
compliance with instructions OF Express
Company printed on c. o. d. envelope.
AFTERNOON.
! Fife continued: In Ham case, there
was an error in books; way bill contains
name of IN. ID. Warrington" while en-
yelope aud other book, showed name "W.
d. Purington," erro! was evidently made
by calling name to party who made out
the way bill. Did not deliver one certain
package TO Ham, though books show the
transaction. Mrs. Fife delivered the
package as she testified Had lost in
structions from whitney, but they were
received. as in other cases.
Testified in regard TO number Of ficti-
iiously addressed packages delivered TO
| States witness Sutcliff, showed book rec
ord OF the transactions, and had orders
from Boston 10 deliver 10 Sutclif. Did not
snow Spring sent Sutcltf for liquor; did
not know what box contained.
Since first year have not taken express
book TO parties for receipting, on delivery
| trips. because the storms Injured book;
made entries himself stating TO whom
goods were delivered; delivered express
from way bills Has not been on speaking
terms with Spring for two or three years,
did not know Spring sent Ella or Sutclif';
had not notified either OF these three men,
that there was express for any Of them at
Office.
Cross -FJGmiHCd by County Attorney :
! Have been Express Agent since 1879;
boxes have been seized on line by officers
for violation of liquor law. Delivered
boxes similar % these in case, % David l..
whitney and % Aug. Fessenden. Fessen-
len came 20 my place, asked me TO write
an order on Boston, for liquor; did the
the writing; do not remember the kind
ordered; sent order in general order en-
yelope 20 Boston, not directed to any par
SECULAR house When box came, Fessen.
len said there was more liquor than he
wanted; asked me to give him half; told
him | had nothing 10 do with breaking
packages; he paid s. 30, and took the II.
QuOr. | have been TO Boston since the
December prosecution. Express Com
pany employed counsel for defense in this
case.
Mrs ELILAG. FIFE Wife OF respondent,
dealer in millinery and fancy goods at
Fryeburg village. Know L. A. Ham; last
October he came TO store, while Mr.. Fife
was out, and asked for express; tried 20
hud Hams name on express book he said
it Is a c. o. d. package aud will not be in
my name; gave name which she cannot
remember; looked over Whitney's orders
A. Ham, went 70 stable with him and de-
livered the package. Cannot find the
Whitney order after having searched for
il. CrOSS-eI.-Do not remember the icti-
tious name he gave; did not know Ham
when he called; cannot remember how
much he paid.
This closed the testimony for defense.
Adams, Perkins and Sinclair were recall.
ed on rebuttal; but added nothing to
their former testimony had heard the
testimony of defense, contradicting their
evidence, but did not wish to make any
changes in their former testimony.
Hon. Enoch Foster of Bethel, made
the closing argument for defense declar-
ing that this was a persecution, instead
of prosecution; that Mr.. Fife had fully
obeyed the instructions of the Company,
and was not personally liable, if the law
had been violated in the delivery of these
packages. No testimony had been pro-
duced to show that Fife had any person
al interest in the matter. He reviewed
the testimony, and d declared his belief
that witnesses for the State lied when
they contradicted Flies testimony; his
theory being that this was conspiracy
to break down Fife. He argued ably
and with much feeling.
James S. Wright esq, County Attor-
ney, made an able presentation of the
States case. His theory was that al
though Mr.. Fife had heretofore main
tanned good reputation, he had deliver
ed these c. o. d. liquor packages, know
ingly, to any party who would pay the
C. o. d. charges; and had since the pros