The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1883-05-03
DISAGREED.
The Outcome OF the whisky Case of tho
State OF Kansas VS. H. b. Lowe.

r
The Outcome OF the whisky Case of the
State OF Kansas vs. H. Il. Lowe
Tuesday when We went TO press
the jury in the whisky case of the state
of Kansas vs.. Il. B. Love had just gone
out, and it was not until o'clock next
morning that the court was Informed
that they were unable TO agree. and they
were discharged by Jnstice Payne. We
understand that the vote stood four for
CONVICTION and eight for acquIital
From a number of reliable citizens who
were in attendance at the trial and heard
the testimony, we learn that among the
witnesses who were put on the stand, J.
B. Halleek. and II. w. Pearsall
both swore that they had drank
liquor at loves saloon aud paid for it,
and the state could not possibly have
made stronger case than that which
resulted in hung jury. The inference
is plain, therefore, that The jurors who
stood for acquittal assumed the province
of passing upon the merits of the pro-
hibitory law, instead of being governed
by the testimony, which they obligated
themselves upon oath to consider in ar.
irving at their verdict. The defense set
up the plea of malicious prosecution.
but this, in the judgment of those who
heard the evidence afforded q mighty
small loop-hole of escape from the legit,
mate conclusion of the evidence adj
duced.
In view Of the interest which the trial
has excited we publish the charge de
liYered by Justice Payne to the jury
which is as follows:
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY: In this
case the defendant is charged with hav-
| ing sold intoxicating liquors without hav
| ing permit therefor az lots Nos. SO and
/ 10 Merchants street, in the city OF En-
| poria, in 3 building known IS the Fifth
/ Avenue hotel.
| 2 Tue defendant pleads not guilty.
s. Under the issues the burden OF the
proof is upon the prosecution, and be-
| fore the defendant can be convicted his
guilt must be established by the evil
deuce beyond a reasonable doubt.
T. You are the exclusive judges of the
| evidence, of It's weight and of the credi-
bIlity of the witnesses. II you
/ DtlkENt lIOtn CNlQCLCC llub uDJ VIII
ness has testified falsely, willingly and
| Knowingly. you are AT liberty to disre-
| gard the whole of such witness' testi-
moRy.
8 The JUICY has the right to consider
every fact and circumstance proved
| tending TO show that the defendant kept
! liquor on the premises for sale.
7 6. Ii the jury believe beyond reason
able doubt that the defendant sold whis-
ky or other fermented liquors to ]. B.
Hallecll or aoy of the other witnesses
without having permit to sell. they
ought 10 find the defendant guilty as
charged.
7. There are certain liquors which
the law presumes to be intoxicating in
Guiding all fermented liquors, such as
whisky, brandy, lager beer, &c.
s. In all criminal prosecutions, when
it is shown that the witnesses are ac-
| tuated in the giving Gf their testimony
bya feeling of spite and revenge their
testimony should be received with great
caution by the jury, and 1t Is always
safer for the testimony of all witnesses
who are governed in their TESTING ny by
a feeling of spite and revenge against
the defendent, to require strong corro'
boration of the act testified to by the
witness.
How any juror could have entertained
any reasonable doubt" as to the guilt
OF the defendant, in view of the conclu-
sive evidence which was given by al
least three trustworthy witnesses, Is
what the public is trying to fathom
though it has been demonstrated again
and again that testimony which would
be accepted without cavil IN any Other
proceeding save one etfecting the liquor
question is ignored. with impunIty in
cases brought under the prohibitorY law
This only goes to prove the power Of
the rum traffic to corrupt the people of
community where it is tolerated, and
indicates the necessity of renewed and
quickened vigilance on the part of the
enemies of this giant evil. We learn
that the case will be tried again, and we
trust with better results the next time.