Audubon County Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Audubon Co., Iowa) 1885-1894, 1886-10-14
Tho Local Courts,

The past week has been a lively
one in the local courts. The ears of
the court have been often tickled
with ellis Honor" Iuries have been
profusely complimented upon their
intelligence and sense of Justice, and
the "designing trickster and villain,
the opposing COUNSEL" has received
frequent and we may say in most
cases deserved reprimand,
On iuiormations fled by Chas.
NanGorder, DR.. J. F. Cloughly was
twice tried for violations of the
liquor laws. The first case was for
selling liquor to . minor. A jury
was impaneled consisting of Jno.
+. Consigny, J. a. Whcatley, J. p.
Tharnish, John Doak, VIII Doak
and {. N. Skinner. II. +, An.
drews was counsel for the prosccu-
ton and John Griggs and NJ.
Nichols for the defense. The only
testimony in the case was that of u
minor, who said that he had bought
a bottle of liquid OF the defendant,
but was unable to swear rs to just
what it was, The jury acquitted.
The second case came on for trial
Friday morning and was for selling
liquor to one Tom Travis, an al.
legged habitual drunkard. The jury
consisted OF w. II. Scott, G. II.
Russell, Z. Weston, Charles Smith,
Geo. Fuller and A. Caldwell. It
was shown that on several different
occasions Travis bought of the de-
fcndant alcohol in quantities of half
pint; also, upon one occasion at
least, bottle of beer. These facts
were acknowledged by tho defense,
but 1t was asserted that the liquors
were sold as medicine for sciatlca, al
though when given no statement
was made Of his case, nor did he
state that he wanted It for such
trouble. Neither were any diric-
tons given for taking the alcohol.
1t was apparently given with a well
reposcd confidence that the patient
knew how to administer the doses.
Or it may have been given with an
idea that the entire quantity would
not prove injurious in one dose,
Witnesses were introduced to testify
to the character of the purchaser Of
the liquors and none swore to hav-
ing known him to be in state OF
intoxicatlon less than three times.
In the face Of this preponderance OF
evidence the jury found the defend
ant not guilty OF the violation as
charged in the information. Ar
guments Of the counsel on either
side of the case were tedious and in
the main had little bearing upon the
case. The argument OF the counsel
for the defense was misleading, es-
pecially SO as regards the qualifica-
tons necessary to establish the char.
acter of an habitual drunkarl, Ac.
cording to their line Of argument,
which alone must have dictated the
verdict, the most confirmed inebriate
could not be called an habitual
drunkard.
During the summer months petty
thcfts in various parts Of town have
awakened the authorities to the ne
cessity of ferreting out the boys or
men who were making so free with
the property of their neighbors. The
hardware store of Jones & McKar-
ahan has been frequently entered,
but only small quantities of cutlery
were missed at any one time. Knives
came on the street market at suspi-
ciously low prices, and it was learned
that Frank Ellis and Charlie Bray
ton, boys about fourteen years of
age, were the ones who first offered
them for sale. These youths were
brought before Squire Rogers, and
confessed to the crime of stealing
knives, revolver, cartridges, shot,
ETC., from the store above mentioned,
to which store they had access by