The Portland daily press., 1885-11-10
THE CALIFORNIA WINES.
Hearing on the Case Before Judge
Gould Yesterday.

Yesterday afternoon, in the Municipal
Court, before!Judge Gould, the case of Peter
Eschelbasch of Santa Anna, California,
claimant for the carload of California wines
and brandies seized in the Boston & Maine
yard on the 9th day of October, and held I'M
der the libel of Seth Sterling, was heard, and
after listening to the testimony Judge Gould
rendered his decision, ordering the wines to
be given back to Eschelbasch, the manufac-
turer. Eschelbasch has come all the way
from California to Portland to claim his
property. He is middle-aged German, and
has evidently not had much experience in
business affairs outside of his calling of wine
making. Being unable to make himself I'M
derstood in English, Mr.. Eschelbasch gave
his testimony by means of an interpreter,
| Mr.. Wendell Kirsch of this city, acting in
| that capacity. Geo. F. Holmes, Esq, of the
firm of Strout & Holmes, appeared for Es-
| chelbasch, and Assistant County Attorney
| Libby for the government.
In opening the case, Mr. Holmes said that
| he would admit that the liquors-1S0O gallons
of wine and 450 gallons of brandy-had been
| seized at the place and ON the date specified
| in the libel Of Luther A. Sterling, and that
| they were directed to F. B. Heselton of
| Skowhegan, Maine. Mr. Holmes stated that
Mr.. w. H. Heselton, brother to F. B. Hesel-
| ton had written letters to different parties
in regard to price-lsts and freight charges
| on liquors sold by them. One such letter
was sent to a man named Mesmer, of Los
| Angeles, California, who subsequently gave
Eschelbasch, who was friend of his, to un-
derstand that Heselton had ordered this
large amount of liquor, and Eschelbasch
sent the liquor to F. B. Heselton. Heselton,
finding out the state of affairs, notified Mes
mer and Eschelbasch, whereupon the latter
communicated with Strout & Holmes, and
they found that the liquor had been sent by
an unauthorized agent, and seized in Port
land.
Peter Eschelbasch F. B. Heselton, w. Fl.
Heselton and Mr. Kirsch, the interpreter,
were sworn. Mr.. Eschelbasch was called to
the stand and upon examination by Mr..
Holmes testified that he lives at Santa Anna,
Los Angeles County, California, where he is
wine grower. He knows Mesmer, who is a
hotel keeper and furniture dealer at Los
| Angeles. The witness had seen and identi-
fed the libeled wines as the same sent by
| him to F. B. Heselton Of Skowhegan. He
shipped the wine upon an order from Mes
mer, written by Mesmer's son, Mesmer act
ing as he supposed, as Heselton's agent. He
understood that he had made sale of the
| liquor through Mesmer. Upon finding that
the liquor had not been ordered by Heselton
he notified Strout and Holmes of the facts
and telegraphed that he would come to
Portland to claim the liquor. The witness
stated that at the time he had no knowledge
of the prohibitory law of the State of Maine.
Upon cross-examination by Mr.. Libby,
Eschelbasch stated that he shipped the wine
! ON the 18th of September, and received the
order about three weeks before that time.
Mesmer sent for him to see him at Santa
| Anna, and gave him the order there. Mes
mers son gave him the order upon piece of
paper The wine was charged to F. B. Hes
elton on the witness books and the witness
supposed the sale to be made through Hes
elton. Hereceived the telegram from Hes
elton few days, possibly eight or ten, be-
fore starting for Portland and started for
Portland about two weeks before the day of
the hearing. He did not doubt the validity
of the sale prior to receiving Heselton's dis
patch and made no effort to stop the liquors.
After the telegram had been received, Mes
mer could give witness no satisfaction, tell
ing him he must do the best he could. Mes
mer has given the witness orders for num-
Der of years for liquors to be sold but has
not handled the same nor collected the bills.
w. H. Heselton was called and testified
that he is now of Boston but formerly lived
in Skowhegan. He testified to writing Mes
mer a letter for prices, ETC., but said that no
| order was given. The first he heard from
Mesmer was on the oath of September when
| bill of lading and the bill for the wines
were opened by him in the absence of his
brother, F. B. Heselton to whom the papers
were addressed. He knew that no such Ii
quors could have been ordered and at once
telegraphed Eschelbasch to stop the wine
and wrote to both Mesmer and Eschelbasch
explaining that he had never ordered the
wine and telling Eschelbasch to recover it
before it reached the State where it would
be liable to seizure. He had known Eschel-
basch while in California and took this ac-
ton to save his property for him.
| The letters were produced in evidence.
Frank B. Heselton testified that he lives
! at Skowhegan and is the proprietor of the
Heselton House in that place. The first
knowledge he had of the transaction about
the liquor was on the morning of the 25th of
September, when the facts were told him by
his brother. He had not purchased nor Or
dered the liquors His brother, at the time,
was serving as clerk in the hotel.
Neither of the witnesses offered any expla-
nation of Mesmer's course lin the matter or
how the wines were sent to F. B. Heselton
instead of w. Fl. Heselton, unless it was be-
cause f. B. Heseltons printed letter-head
was upon the paper.
Mr.. Holmes briefly reviewed the testimony
and submitted the case.
Mr.. Libby, in summing up, said that the
title of the liquors by Eschelbasch's own act
had passed from him, and consequently he
could not appear as a claimant.
Judge Gould, in rendering his decision,
said that if the story of the witnesses was
true, the wine was the property of Eschel-
basch There was no reason to doubt the
truth of the testimony, strengthened as it
was by the letters introduced and the fact
| that no scheme between the parties could