The Press., 1890-07-31
(Hartford Times.) PERJURY AND DISCLOSURE.

(Hartford Times.)
 PERJURY AND DISCLOSURE.
 The decision of Judge Bennett in the habeas corpus case of Jeremiah Leon, if accepted by the municipal courts and trial justices of the towns, will result, practical ly, in nullifying the disclosure clause of the license law. In substance, Judge Ben nett says that person on trial for drunk enness cannot be punished for lying as to where he obtained the liquor excepting by prosecuting him for perjury. However evident the false statement, the court can take no other measure to punish him.
 The aim of this somewhat peculiar law, as explained in the legislature at the time of its passage, was chiefly to effect disclos- ures of liquor selling in the no-license towns. Whoever sold the accused liquor in one of those towns could be prosecuted. In the cities the law has been of little ef- feet, excepting in the cases of Sunday 'drunks," for on secular days, man on trial for intoxication need have no hesita- tion in naming the actual place of purchase
 In the class of cases m which the law was especially operative, it has often been clear to the magistrates that the persons on trial were deliberately lying, and it has been thelr common practice, we believe, as it has been in the Hartford police court, to hold that statements palpably false were not disclosures within the meaning of the law. In Hartford case, prisoner on trial for drunkenness on Sunday claimed not to have had any liquor since leaving Willimantic, twenty four hours before. In another case, it was claimed that the in- toxication of Sunday was due to 8 glass of lager taken on the preceding Saturday night. In no-license town, @ case is re- ported where a prisoner claimed to have been given bottle of liquor by farmer he met on the road, who was stranger to him. Such stories are false on their face, and it is not surprising that the magis. trates have been inclined to recognize the intent of the law, and punish the offenders as though they had refused to disclose any. thing.
 It is understood that the Hartford police court will not be governed as to future cases by Judge Bennett's finding, and it is not improbable that other courts will hold to their present practice until the law is construed by the supreme court of the state.
 The bill, which was enacted by the gen. eral assembly of 1889, was introduced by Representative Loomis, of Manchester, and was referred to the judiciary commit tee. The committee reported back the bill on the 7th of May without change from its original text, and on the 18th il was passed without debate or amendment after an explanation by the chairman oi the committee as to its effect. A week later it was passed in the senate, without debate. This is the text of the law: | On the trial of any person prosecuted fo, intoxication, if he shall be found guilty, il shall be the duty of the prosecuting officer t< request him to disclose, under oath, when where, how and from whom he procured tn, liquor by which his intoxication was pro duced and if the accused shall make sucl fdisclosure, the same shall not be used agains him on any prosecution: but if he refuses t. make such disclosure, it shall be the duty O the magistrate before whom such trial is had to commit the accused for contempt of cour to the common jail for not less than ten no more than thirty days; if the accused shal be guilty of false swearing in making sucl disclosure, it shall be perjury.
 The Hartford police court and othe courts throughout the state have held tha when reputed disclosure was clearly false it was no disclosure, and the prisoner coul' be committed for contempt, as though h had refused to say anything.
 Judge Bennett holds that any statemen made by prisoner, however ridiculous o Improbable, must be accepted as disclos ure, and that the court must either accep it or prosecute for perjury. Magistrate are we'll aware of the difficulties of secul ing conviction for perjury; in fact s difficult is it, that prosecutions in the Cor necticnt courts for this crime are extreme ly rare. Therefore, they have chosen construe the law in such way as to mos easily carry out its purposes, and save the community the expenses of furthe prosecution under the perjury clause. ] would seem advisable to have the advic of our highest court as to whether tn general practice which has been adopte
 is or is not erroneous.
 Putnam Patriot: Windham count enjoys distinction which it is doubtfr G yuld be duplicated in the entire state
 Of the 15 towns but four having lawye therein, Putnam, Danielsonville, Wint ham and Plaipfield, and but one in tn latter town. Oh, fortunate II neglecte t owns.
 The census quarrel between St. Pa, s and Minneapolis has taken an odd turr
 The chief of the census bureau of the la ter city has been arrested at the instane of St. Paul, charged with 'spadding'' tt