The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1888-01-13
hin duly elected and Mr.. websters bond being

him duly elected and Mr.. webster's bond being
filed he entered at once upon his duties
The criminal docket was then taken up. The
first case tried was that of the State vs. William
Black, of Bel Air, indicted for selling beer to
Louis Knoiier. Jury trial verdict guilty. Web
ster for the state, VIM. Young and Cooley for
defence. Motion for new trial
The next case was State VS.. Henry Campbell,
for selling whisky to Joseph A. Krein. Webster
for the State, VIM. Young and Cooley for the
defence. The States witness testified that about
the last OF November he got drink of whisky
from Campbell, paying him 10 cents on account
of his order given to Major Burrill Campbell
is clerk for Burrill. His order was for one
pint of whisky and a dozen bottles of beer week.
ly. the whisky at 10 cents pint and the beer at
81 dozen. The whisky came out of his own bot.
tie. Verdict not guilty.
State VS.. d. II Burrill, of Bel Air, indicted for
selling whisky to Joseph A. Krein. Verdict not
guilty. Webster for State, Young and Cooley
tor defence.
State vs.. Herman StartZenbach. for selling
whisky to Joseph A. Krein. Verdict not guilty.
Webster for State Young and Cooley for defence.
On Wednesday Judge Waters limited the
speeches OF counsel in the local option cases to
half an hour each.
State VS.. Geo. W. Gelzenlichter for selling
whisky to Louis Knotler. Witness testified that
he gave an order about November 1886, for a spe-
CITED quantity of whisky, and got what he wanted
upon 1t, sometimes pint sometimes less paying
for 1t or not when he got it. as was convenient
Webster for State, Young and Cooley for DE-
fence. Verdict not guilty.
State vs.. Daniel r. Burrill, of Bel Air, indicted
for violating the local option law. The witness.
A. o. Richardson, testified that Major Burrill sold
i'm hal nil If xyhG,
order for one gallon of whisky and L. bottles of
beer per month. His object in giving the order
was to enable him togeta drink or pint whom he
wanted it, and he did not expect TO pay for any
more than he actually got. Webster for State.
Young, Hopkins and Cooley for defence We
dict not guilty,
state vs.. Daniel X. Burrill, indicted for yolat-
ng the local option law. The prosecuting wit
ness, N. w. 5. Hays, testified that during the
county fair he treated several persons to whisky
IN Major BurrilFs place. He paid Mr.. Devlin
VINO waited in town and Major Burrill was pre-
sent. He had no order. Verdict guilty. Web
ter for State Young and Cooley for Defence
Motion for new trial.
On Thursday the following local option cases
were tred
State vs.. William Black. OF Bel Air, for selling
drink of whisky to wm J. Temple. No order,
Verdict guilty. Webster for the State Young
and Cooley for defence.
state vs.. Henry Campbell. The States wit
ness Jas. NJ. Reynolds, testified that 10 October
last a1ter paying Major Burril some money on
an order he held upon witness, he went into Bur-
fills hotel in Bel Air, and treated Major Burrill
and several Others. Campbell, Burrill's clerk.
"a'eu upon him. and witness paid Campbell fer
the drinks. Had no order.
Campbell swOrn that ha paro, ,oil Al
nolds any whisky, and Major BurriIl testified
that he never drank with Mr.. REYNOLDS in his
life. Jury out.
State vs.. Geo. w. Gezenlch,er, for selling
whisky to A. o. Richardson, on an order. The
jury, having asked for instructions with regard
TO sales OF liquor on orders Judge Waters COM
piied' giving them his Interpretation of the law
in writing, as follows
If the jury find that from the eyidence tho
prosecuting witness got beer from the trayerser
and paid the trayerser for it, as testified to
Then if the jury shall further believe from
the evidence that the order offered in evidence
was given by the prosecuting witness and re.
celVed py the traverser in good faith and with
!he purpose and intention on the part of the
traverser, ofprocuring the articles therein men.
toned for the accommodation of the prosecut
ing witness, and that the delivery of beer In
the prosecuting witness at the time set
forth in the indictment in this case was bona
hde iulhllment of the same TRANSACTION CON
tempiated IN the order, then such delivery of
beer was not sale under the law.
But II the jury believe from the evidence in
this case that the order given in evidence was
given by the prosecuting witness and received
oy the traverser for the purpose of enabling the
traVeIser to sell Risky and beer to the prose.
cutting witness in evasion of the law, of the
State, then the order is no defence whatever.
AND In determining the good or bad faith of
the trayerser in the transaction the Jury should
take INTO consideration all the facts and crcum-
stances connected with the giving of the order
and the delivery OF and payment for the beer,
as testified on the witne SIS stand