The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1883-07-12
"H00P-LAI"
A Verdict of Conviction in the Lelbfr,ed
Liquor Case.
The Defendant Fined Si0O and Cosls
and Takes an Appeal to the
District Court,

taC OSIShUdU Itheu StOO dhu NOSt
and Takes an Appeal to the
II District Court.
d The trial of the Leibfried liquor cas-
was resumed before Justice Fletcher q
the court house Friday morning. and ha.
attracted considerable attention through
out the day. A large number of VIII
nesses we're introduced by the state, sew
eral of whom testified Iii the most un
kequIvocal manner TO having drank in
tOxicating drinks at Leibfried's place
and paid for them. The case made by
the state could not have been stronger
and the witness upon whose evidence
the state elected to stand is a gentleman
4 whose reputation for integrity cannot
be gain-said. at tue conclusion of the
evidence Justice Fletcher delivered the
following excellent and straight forward
charge to the jury:
The defendant is innocent until
proven guilty, and the burden of the
/ proof is on the state to prove the guilt
! of the defendant beyond q REASONABLE e
doubt, and before you can find the de-
PENDANT guilty you must be so satisfied
beyond reasonable doubt.
This is prosecution under the prohi-
bltory law. now a part of the statute
laws of this state
Under the peculiar wording Of the
prohibitory law, the maximum fine be-
ing $500, the extent of Justices juris-
dlctIon, and each saleconstItuting dis
tinct ofense, and the complaint contain
ing but one Offense, the
state are required to elect
on which sale they will stand, and the
state has elected TO stand upon the evil
dence of the sales made to Charles
Harms.
The sale of liquor, for the purpose of
constituting an offense can be proved
for two years prior to the offense charg-
ed in the complaint. The day thereof
is not material, provided it is within
two yeals prior to June 2, 1888.
If the jury find from the evidence of
any witness, upon the building immedi-
ately over the door occupied by Harry
Leibfed, in the business he is connected
with on Commercial street, between
Sixth and Seventh avenues the number
III pl aced upon plate, you will find
that Harry Lelbtried's place of business
is 1T Commercial street, as charged in
the complaint.
Any shift or device to avoid the law
you Will not allow the defendant TO take
advantage of, and it is not necessary
that the defendant should own
the building. But If you find from the1
evidence of any witness that Harry
Leibfried rented or leased said building
or controlled the business or the use Of
the building for any purpose whatever,
and any intoxicating liquors were sold
on said premises or in the building with
the consent or knowledge of said lessee
Leibfried, and during his occupation
thereof; if you find that the defendant
LeibfrIed was lessee then you will find
that the defendant, Harry Leibfried, is
guilty of selling intoxicating liquor.
]. The court lnstructS you that all the
evidence offered by the state may be
considered by the jury for the purpose
of determining whether or not liquors
are kept for sale on the lot occupied by
the defendant as charged IN the COM
plant, and you may also consider said
evidence for every purpose other than
for the purpose OF proving sale, but so
far as the selling of liquor Is concerned,
you must find from the testimony of the
witness elected, or some other witness
who saw him drink or buy liquor on
the defendants premises.
2. AS to who occupied the building in
which the offense is charged to have
been committed and carries on business
therein, you have a right to consider
who rented the building or bought or
furnished the furniture or implements
kept therein, and if you are satisfied be-
You'd reasonable doubt that the defend.
ant, Harry Leibfried, rented the build
ing and purchased the billiard tables
therein, this would be evidence
tending to show that he still occupied
and controlled the bnildiDg ON June ID,
1888, and prior to that time from the
date OF renting the same, and carried on
business conducted therein, and was
the proprietor of that building at the
date of the sale of liquor proved to have
been made to the witness.
Now, if the jury find from the evil
dence that the defendant, Harry Leib-
fried, prior to June 2, 1893, and within
two years, sold any intoxicating liquor
to Chas. Harris, on lot 1T Commercial
street, without a permit from the Pro
bate Judge of Lyon county, you Will
find the defendant guilty. If not, you
will acquit the defendant.
County Attorney Feighan then ad.
dressed the jury, setting forth the IN
mistakabie character of the evidence,
and adding to the strength of his case
by an able statement of the legal bear
ings of the proceeding.
He was followed by T. N. Sedgwick,
in behalf of the defense, who denounced
the prohihitorY law as oppressive and
unjust, and who claimed that the people
were not under any obligations to re-
spect such an arbitrary measure, COM
pairing the opposition to the policy of
prohibition TO the spirit aroused by
John Brown to the laws which fostered
and protected human slavery. Mr.. LAM
bert also addressed the jury at some
length 10 behalf of the defense, and was
succeeded by County Attorney Feighan,
who closed the argument for the state.
In view Of the seditious speech of Mr..
SedgwIck, which was wholly out of char
acter IN court ofjustice, Justice Fletch-
er deemed it necessary to make the fol-
lowing additional instructions to the
jury:
The jury are further instructed that
| they are under oath to decide the case
according to the law as given you by
the court and the evidence. You will
not pay any notice to any appeal to you
| 10 disregard the statute laws oil the
state, for such an appeal is treason, and
before such jury as this the court is
perfectly satisfied that your honor, your
/ intelligence and your duty to the state
| and to the defendant will be properly
and fully exercised.
| The jury then retired, and after being
out less than five minutes, returned a
verdict of guilty according to the law
and the evidence. The court then pro-
nounced sentence. fining the defendant
500 and costs. An appeal was taken
by Leibfried to the district court, and
his bond was fixed at $500.
This ia q glorious victory for the tenn
perance cause and is Yindica-
ton of the law which will
prove particularly salutary at this time.
The vantage ground gained in this pro-
ceedIng should not only be held, but a
sharp, aggressive warfare should be
opened mp and maintained by the
state and citI authorities all along the
line until the viclators of the liquor law
are driven from the field in shane and
confusion.
=E-sS1s-r-s---.---@
worthy OF Communication.
Prof. Sogsrd Thursday showed Us
a copy OF a pamphlet OF sixty pages, en-
titled "Kansas," which he has lately