The Press., 1888-05-24
JUDGE ANDREWS CHARGE TO uTna IgRYy
CASE OF STATE vs THOMAS RUBY, SUPERIOR
 COURT, HOLLAND COUNTY, APRIL 26 1888 |


 Gentlemen of the Jury: The complaint which you will have before you contains several counts, but only the first three are subjects for your consideration, because as to the others no evidence has been offered to found a claim of. conviction upon them and so you may treat the complaint as though it contained only the three counts And in respect to the three counts on which evidence IS offered, you are to treat each of them as though it was a distinct count by itself, and when you come in you will be called upon by the clerk to give your verdict in regard to each count sepa- rately.
 The first count charges the defendant with keeping place in Stafford in which it is reputed that spurious and intoxicat- ing liquors are kept for sale. The language of the statute is, "Every person who shall keep bar or place in which it is reputed that spurious liquors are kept for sale shall be punished" etc. This count re- quires you to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the person, that is the defend ant, Thomas Ruby, kept the place, and that it had the reputation that is charged against it.
 In respect to the question whether Ruby himself is the keeper or not, you have the testimony of the persons who say they saw him about there apparently doing those things which keeper does do. Then, you have the testimony of what he said before the magistrate, that "He had to stand the shot" or something like that MT. Rock we'll, who says that he is the owner of the building, and it might be inferred the lessor of Ruby, Is here and says nothing to the contrary. The fact of former con- vlction for keeping this place at certain time, ln which MT. Ruby was defendant, is also brought in they say, also that If MT. Ruby was not the keeper or lessee, MT. Rockwell, who was the lessor, could have been called upon to state that some other person was the keeper there. Upon this evidence-and at this moment I do not recall any other-you are asked to say, first, that Ruby was the keeper of the place in Stafford Springs. Clearly, if he was the lessee, and the managing man, and the owner, he would be the keeper. fhe was there engaged in any such way as made him the owner, or if he was so employed there that he was in your opinion the keep CT, then he would be clearly chargeable it is not necessary he should be the sole keeper, or that there should be no other keeper if he IS there as a keeper, in whole or ill part, he would be liable upon the charge which is made against him.
 The next, and perhaps more significant part of this case, is whether the place had the reputation which is charged in the complaint that is, did it have upon the 9th day of March, if that is the day charg. ed, the reputation of being place where intoxicating lIxuors were sold. Right here in respect to the question of not h wing 8 license, will say as there has been uC evidence of license, you may take it to be proved that he did have no license be cause, if he had license, he could have easily produced it, and 1t not having been offered by him, you may take it to be true he did not have any license.
 To come back to the question of whether the place had the reputation charged, quite large number of witnesses from that neighborhoOd have testified to you that that building did have the reputation o1 being place where intoxicating liquors were sold, as charged in the complaint Then, they say, this reputation is founded in fact it Is the real reputation, the bona Gde reputation, and not fictitious one the rightful reputation, which not only does but ought to attach to the place. They say it because they see persons around there who are in the habit of drinking, per sons who would be likely to frequent place where liquors are sold, persons going in there sober and coming away under the influence of liquor.
 And then the proof of actual sales is of fered for the purpose of showing that this , reputation was founded in fact The ar engagement of the place itself that is, there Is all outer room in which apparently nc business is done; there is stove there where they lounge there is an inner room partitioned off from this outer room by partition that there is a door and the dOo is fastened in peculiar way with string attached to the latch that within this in ner room there is bar behind the ba was shelf, and under the bar there art shelves upon which there is place fo rinsing glasses and from all this evidenc, the states attorney asks you to believe says you ought to believe, that it is a plac, where liquors are in fact sold, and so tha the reputation 1t has Is the real reputation And here, gentlemen, let me call your at tention again to the fact that you must no only find that it had this reputation, bu you must find it was the real reputation that the place had-not only that it had but it ought to have, in the opinion of tn honest, sensible and reputable people 0 that neighborhood. I believe 1 have al ready mentioned the fact of actual sale having been made is also relied upon l. show that this reputation in fact existe' and that it ought to exist.
 Now, gentlemen, you will bear i'll min, this offense is the reputation of the place not the reputation of the man it is tn reputation of the place, and the ofense ? keeping place with that reputation. the place kept by the defendant had on tn Sth day of March last the reputatio charged, and such reputation was clea and we'll founded reputation, then the com plaint is proved ill this particular part c it. If you are convinced absolutely tha Ruby kept this particular place on the lot day of February, there would be sort ( presumption that he continued to keep il , in the absence of any evidence to the con trary because there is rule of law-and is rule which applies in logic-thata a COT ,, dition of things once having been estat lished is presumed to continue until tn :. contrary is shown. So that, if you fin . . clearly that either in January or Tn Febru ary Ruby kept this place, you would b warranted in finding that he kept it i March, unless there is some evidence ths . indicates to the contrary, from this rule ( which I speak.
 And, substantially in the same manner . the presumption would apply to the fac of the reputation. If you believe siucerel L and beyond all sort of doubt that the rel utation of this house in January or Febrr ? ary was as claimed by the states attorney :. yo,, xuo,,I,l ha iuatIfiod in hnlinvino th.