The Press., 1888-05-24
Issued Every Thursday Evening.

,rtst.g--.-- ed. I speak of this in reference to the former conviction.
 Now the conviction is for keeping a place having a certain reputation. The conviction does not change the character of the place, but it punishes the man for keeping the place. We have a statue that makes it penal offense to keep house that is, or IS reputed to be, a house of ill fame, the language in respect of the repu- tation being almost precisely like the Ian guage in this case. If man was convicted today of keeping a house reputed to be of ill fame and punished, the reputation of the house is not changed thereby, and if he shall continue 10 keep it tomorrow, a conviction tomorrow might also be made. Each day of keeping such a place as that Is itself a separate otfense. If this man was convicted on the 10th day of February, that conviction does not preclude your finding him guilty upon the 8th day of March, unless you find entirely independ- ent of the fact of conviction that the repu- tation of the place has changed. The con viction does not change the character of the place. The law undoubtedly punishes people with the hope that they will reform and change, but unfortunately punishment does not always correct the evil. Any man may be convicted of keeping a place where liquor Is sold on one day, and he may continue to keep it the next day, or week, or month, and if, in fact, he does keep it next week, and the reputation does con- tinue, he is just as guilty upon the subse- quent days as upon the first. If a,person who is convicted on one day continues to keep the place, and the reputation contin- ues, the fact of the conviction upon the T T ok l~,,, the subsequent day.
 Now on the question of the reputation, of course, you will understand that it is your duty to find not only that the defend ant is the keeper of the place, but you will find 1t has or had the reputation charged
 The next count charges actual sale to one Weekes, and the testimony comes from Mrs. Weekes, 1 believe. She testifies that her husband upon @ certain night-I think she says the 3d, or 4th, or 5th of January last-took bottle from the house, went to the place kept by Ruby, went in, she fol- lowing all the time and seeing him go in and remaining on the outside; he was gone fifteen minutes, or about long enough to get his bottle filled he came out she saw the mark of the bottle in his coat, and when he got home she saw the bottle and saw there was spirit in it. Upon that evi-
 
 there was an actual sale to Weekes. It is not necessary that the offense should be proved upon the precise day. It is nee essary in order to convict upon this count, that you should find there was sale to
 Weekes, because it is alleged it was to
 Weekes. It is not necessary you should find it was, on the fifth day of January. } You may find it upon any day prior to the , date of the complaint and within one year
 next prior to the date of the complaint , So, if there was sale to Weekes there up
 on the fifth day of January, or the seventh ! day of January, or in February, or going ) back to December or October-a sale tC , Weekes must be proved, but upon any day within a year next before the date of tho } complaint would be sufficient, and the sale l to Weekes of any kind of intoxicating liq , uor would also prove it ; that Is, whether
 it is whiskey or any other kiud of intoxi r eating liquor. The statute includes every } kind of distilled liquor. If I remember , the definition it is, All spurious, that is
 all kind of liquors, all kind of mixed liq uors, all distilled liquors, ale or porter 5 wine, beer, upon which the United States
 government requires stamp upon tho casks, cider" etc. A sale of any one o l these intoxicating liquors would prove this count 1 think the count does not ind. c ltC , the kind of liquor. You must find there 7 was. sale to Weekes and you must find this beyond a reasonable doubt. If all
 these elements are proved to your satisfGc l tion, the count Is proved.
 5 The next count ls of keeping with intent 3 to sell and here the day Is not essential
 the keeping with intent to sell of any l1inC of intoxicating liquors within the defni 5 tion I have already given to you. Keeping them with intent to sell at any other tim, 3 and year would prove that offense.
 ) Upon this part of the case the states at 3 torney asks you to consider the various l evidence that has been offered and partic 3 ularly what Ruby said, think, to Mrs r Tyler, who says she went there upon ont 2 occasion and asked him not to sell to her sor = David, and he replied that he had not sold r and another time he said that he would g not sell any more, implying that he haC r sold. If you find that Ruby actually solc g sold spirits, the fact of the sale would b [, conclusive evidence that he had some ther g with intent to sell, because if man nc t tually sells liquor he must have 1t betor |. he can sell it. and he must intend to sell it - otherwise he would not sell if, and whel t you find the fact that he actually did sel t liquor it inevitably proves that he had D and intended to sell it. If you find tha ' bnOIO Wdo u oOtlC 6O OlbhCA Ol bhOpO ObhS 6 persons, or, perhaps, if you find there wa # a sale to Weekes of any other liquor thal l. this, to drink there or to carry away, tha s would prove he kept liquor with intent t o sell. 1 repeat again, you must find thi d proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Ur
 on each count you must find the offens d proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and un }, less you find so your verdict should be no e guilty, and if you find it so your dut s would be to find the defendant guilty. If may call your attention to what is e reasonable doubt It is not a fancifu n doubt it is not a mere conje cture, but 1T is doubt for which yon can give some req r. son that is, doubt that arises ont of tn 'f testimony, either because there is failur 1t to prove the offense charged, or becaus h evidence offered by the defendant show 'f that that condition of things does not e1 t, ist :; that is, doubt which you, as reason l. able men, can say y.exists in the evidence 1t and for which you can give a reason. c l. course in all human affairs we have t J. trust somewhat to presumptive evidence e It is absolutely impossible, ordinarily, d get actual and positive evidence, absolut l. evidence, and so we have to act by prt e sumption. If, taking all these presumI n tions together, you believe that the offens It in either of the counts has been proved bC 'f yond a reasonable doubt, your verdict wi
 be guilty upon that count, and if you fin F, that it does not arise to that degree of ce