Peninsula enterprise. [volume] (Accomac, Va.) 1881-1965, 1888-04-27

NJ - ,.,,;oh tho r;rh+s .,
tha o,w,,er i've eeon,e Yosted nj att tbs
t; , Of ~ a 9 No ss,ma Ia onestions moi
n ,.a in nj fhn nresant case and uno,
no IL will no
,i,'1 r wb.n II arises
~ THO cnn,tys conrt tharernre did not
or. In oys,.r;,I;no-thed demurrer IN the
;nl;etn,e,,t INT I,'' Il did err in ,,verr,Iiur
| lie motinn for Il new trial AS. a brief
review of the evidence will show.
THE fret witness. William J Barnes.
/ testlfies that after the passage of the
local. ontiou law ,'he ralled upOn Win.
der and Drnnnlnnd who were the de.
PENDANT s clerks -at his hotel. in Lee
naristerial district. in AccOmac for
ginger. and git il. that lie raid ten
cents n drink for It. and drank it ont of
glass about tie size of an ordinary
whisky glass. in tile rom usually
known as file larroOm:. THAT he trok
much more of IL at a drink than he
WAS accustomed tn take of wllisky:tlat
did NOT hive the same taste IA whisky:
NOR conld hp say whether mr. rot f was
intoyicatinr because. Lefurp drinking
if. he lad drank whisky, which WIS civ
en- him Inv the defendant and others.
Thp Defendant. he saws. was not pres
emit when he r,,rcllased the ginger. AMI
he does not know whether Winder and
Drummonrl we're authorized by the de.
PENDANT to sell Intoxicating liquors or
nnt.
The next witness. Johnson, testifies
that since the passage of the local on
tion law he has drunk ginger at tll.de.
fendant's hotel. aud tliat he never saw
any there before the law was passed. He
thinks If "a man were to drink enough
of it, it would intoyicate him. and that
Il beer glass and "a half of 1t would lie
sufficient He ordinarily drank it out
of a.wliisky glass. He does not know,
however wIiether'the ginger he drank
was like that drunk by Barnes, nor does
he say that it WAS sodium by tile de-
PENDANT or any other person he merely
saws he drank ginger at. the defendants
hotel. He does not even say he got il
at the DEFENDANTS hotel. or that he got
il from tlle defendant or his agent. and
non constat that he did. He may hive
potten.lt elsewhere.
HE lleYt WltflPSS. hlcCrculy. CeiCl-
lies that he bought ginger at tle defen.
.dnnI's hntc1 and is satisfied it was in.
toyicatino He does rnr know. howey-
er. whether that sold to Barnes was in
tnx.c;ltinr mr. ,,ot nor Ices he saw that
what he rot was sol,l him nv Tile ,lrfrn.
aant mr. lis AGENT and for angllt Inc does
saw no ma, have bought it from a
;, yannnr AND without The defendant,
+ /, .,,"wIedoa Aud The tes. imnny of the
r,nr,h and last witness on Tile Snliect
John w Vessels. is not more salts
Factory Ue tesfiIirs that he was treat
al Inv - friend In 4 drink of oi,,urr .t
the defendant, hotel ami Iilat the
c,,.rl, at thc hotel waited on them. II
looked and tnstpd. he SAWS. like whisky
and and might he considered whisky. but he
J,, e. not cav II was il.toyicatino I'm
the contrary he ,ays EXPRESSLY fin, the
,1rink he fork had M effect mon him
And like fine witness who precetled
him he was unable 10 saw what was thn
nature on quality of the liquor sold 10
Barnes. He saws the llolinr he got
tasted like whisky. but Barnes swcars
tIat what he oot tasted differently and
neither testifits that What he drank was
;ntoyicating
This sv;dence which is all the ma.
,erial evidence for the Com,nonwnalth
"a nlai,ly insufficient to warrant the
verdict. Tt neither shows that the linuor
sold to Barnes was intoyicatinq. ms the
Indictment charges. nor that Winder
and Drummond or either Of them were
ont. omthor;yod hy Tho ,crnssd IN SILL if and
.I' ,.eS s ~ nf their enn,ovnant 90
oi,o ut ,t Lie I% bot.l 10 not f,ct from
...,;ni ,ta;,. nr,,nan ~ cal, ,;nnnr o,n
s mrl,' b ,,ii ;,rsrred The local nresnmu.
t flo, ! in favor of the Innocence Of the &C
cused can he rebl,ttpd only nv prpof suf
fcient To est ablish his rnilt OF the of
rpnce charged in the Indictment beyond
a rational Gonbt. or. in other words. the
,roof mnet he sniicientlv conclusive to
.xol, i.,n reaeon,LJa ennnocition ne
SHSi ;rn5caMce md here the ay; i'd, for
. ", Co.'S 40, n,nnwsaltJ, n;vinr II filI tnrct.9
and, credit and reieciing that. for the
accnsed ithe eyi1tnce not the facts he.
inc certiflpd) is NOT inconsistent with
such an hypothesis. 1t may create a
suspicion Int nothing more.
The position of the Commonwealth
is. that the accus ed must be presumed
10 have sold Intoxicating liquors to
Barnes because, about the same time,
and at the same place. he sold such llu-
nors to other persons. But the latter
.proposition is not sustained Ly the evl-
,lence of a single witness. 50 that. to
find the accused gnilty, the fact OF his
guilt must be Inferred from another