Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1891-01-05
Has Stopped Selling Liquor.

Last week we referred to the eel
ebrated trial of one Kibling, who set
up a beer saloon in Norwich, VT,
within convenient distance of Dart
mouth college, where the college boys
could obtain their liquor. He did q
thriving business for some time, but
finally fell into the clutches of the
law, and was tried at the Windsor
county court, Judge Thompson pre-
siding, week before last. The jury
convicted him of 715 offenses. The
law makes each offense SO with
costs. He was amerced in the sum
of S72S9.7O, in the default of the
payment of which he was sent to Rut-
land for 21,S67 days, besides some
extra time given for costs of commit
ment. Hence he gets about 60 years.
As the respondent is 30 years of age,
he is liable to spend the best part of
a blighted life in the House of Cor
rection, unless some tender hearted
governor reprieves him. The follow
ing is a part of Judge Thompson's
impartial and just charge to the jury {:
Gentlemen of the jury:
This respondent is prosecuted for
violating the liquor law of this state.
The legislature has seen fit to enact a
law making it a criminal offence for
person to manufacture, sell, furnish
or give away by himself, clerk, SER
want or agent, spirituous or intoxicat-
ing liquor or mixed liquor of which
part is spirituous or Intoxicating, or
malt liquor or lager beer; and it is
furthermore enacted that the phrase
Intoxicating liquors referred (Which
occurs in the chapters relating to such
traffic, shall be held to include such
liquors and beer.
Now it is the duty of the court and
the jury to administer the law as we
find it. 1t should make no difference
with US whether we think it wise
law or an unwise law; whether we
think some other method of regulat-
ing or restraining this traffic would
be more desirable. If we are true to
our oaths as court and jurors, we
must administer the law as we find it,
without any regard to the consequence
es. If it is a good law, the admins
tration of the law faithfully by courts
and jurors will establish that fact.
If it is a bad law, there is no way by
which its badness can be so clearly
determined as by faithful, honest ex-
ecution of it, and it is for the legisla-
ture to determine when the law shall
be changed.
Now, take this case. 1t is the
duty of the court and the jury to try
and determine this case irrespective
of any personal opinions we may
have on this subject of prohibitory
legislation just as we could try a case
of horse stealing, of larceny, of bur-
glary, of rape or any criminal offence.
We should try them according to the
evidence given in court and the laws
of this state, and true deliverance
make between the respondent and the
state. This being a criminal offence,
you are made by the law Judge both
of the law and the fact. 1t is safer
for jurors to take the law as laid
down by the court; for, in that case,
if the court erls In its statement of
what the law is, the respondent can
have such error corrected by taking
exceptions and having such rulings
revised in the supreme court. If the
jury makes mistakes in the law, as
they may set it up, contrary to the
instructions of the court, and such
error is against the respondent, there
is no way by which such error can be
corrected. The court instruct YOU
that if you find that the respondent
since the first day of January, 1889,
down to the time when the indict-
ment or Information was filed against
him, has sold either by himself or his
clerk, this man Oscar Clifford, lager
beer or whlskey,as the evidence tends
20 show, then he has violated the
laws Of the state, and you may find
him guilty,