Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1892-10-10
SUPERIOR COURT.
September Term-Hon. o. G. Hall Presiding.
w. S. CHoArE, Clerk.
l.. T. CARLETON. County Attorney.
G.. T. STEPHENS, Sheriff.
+. \. SMALL, Stenographer.
SATURDAY., Oct. sth

SATURDAY, Oct. sth.
White VS. Getchell. This case was sub
n,itted to the jury at 3.l5 =. NJ. At 80
they returned with verdict for the plaintiff
for $50 25.
Cyrus Jersey, convicted of burning the
barn in Reaifield, was sentenced to the re-
form school during his minority, and in
case he should prove incorrigible, three
years at labor in Auburn Jail.
State VS. Intoxicating Liquors s. A. Dins-
more. Claimant. Submitted TO the deter
mination of the court. Following is the
decision of Judge Hall in this case
The facts proven are as follows. The
claimant and five other individuals con-
.tituted club and for a year or more had
procured liquors from Boston for
ieir own use. the claimant be-
ing the agent and steward of the
club for the purchase of the liquors and the
keeping of them at bis room in a hotel
in Bingham, Somerset county. Each MEM
Der of the club had a key to the room and
access to the liquors and was privileged to
treat his friends" No sales of liquors were
ever made by the club or said claimant and
the membership was limited to six. Pay
ment for the liquors and freight was made
by the joint anil equal contributions of the
members of the club.
pom seizure of the liquors on the car at
Oakland in this county before delivery to
the claimant or TO said clab, it was duly
hbeied nv the officer and on the day fixed
by the magistrate. in his monition, for a
bearing of claimants of said liquors. a claim
in writing was duly filed by :. \. Dins-
more in which he claimed said liquors az
his property and that they were not in
tended for unlawful sale as alleged in said
libel.
The ground upon which alone the liquors
can be declared forfeited Is: that they were
intended for sale in this State in violation
OF law. The facts proven do not warrant
the conclusion that they were so intended
either by the claimant on any one else.
The statute does rot interfere with the right
Of an individual or an association of indi-
VI iuals to procure and use intoxicating
iiqnors in the manner here shown. The
case comes within tise decisions of the Su-
praine Court of Massachusetts in Common
wealth VS. Smith. f02 Mass. IA and Com
nonw ealth vs. Pomphret 1871 Mass. 564
wherein it was held that if liquors are
purchased on the account of members of
club from some person other than the defend
ant. and if he merely kept the liquors for
them anil to be divided among them accord
ing TO previously arranged system. these
facts would not justify the jury in finding
that he kept a Nuisance within the meaning
of the statute under which be was indicted.
That was statute identical with our liquor
nuisance statute in Us scope. and the essence
of the charge was the maintaining place
for the Illegal keeping of intoxicating
liquors Evidence of sale or intended sale
unIaw fully in the place make il nuisance.
The charge in this case is that the liquors
seized were intended for sale in this State in
violation of Law by said claimant. No such in
ssn..on is show Il 6y the evidence. II wa.
found necessary in Massachusetts, to en-
act a law to meet sHch eases, and statue |
was passed in ISL making the distribution
of intoxicating liquors by clubs 20 their |
members, in that state, unlawful. Wehave |