Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1892-09-30

state rs. Fdyette Rice-lnformation by the
states attorney for selling and furnishing ntoXl-
eating liquor. The evidence on behalf of the pros
ecution tended to show in April, 1892, the defend
ant furnished one Herman Ingram with jug of
cider; again at a later date in the spring and
again in July. for which he paid nothing That
in August he furnished two quarts to Jonathan
NJ. Ingra m, for which Ingram offered to pay him,
but respondent refused to take anything. Herman
Ingram testified on cross-examnation that he
was respondents son.in-law and lived on farm
about.on mile and half distant from respond
ent's house; and that he was always at home at
respondent s house and helped himself to what
ever he wanted; that on the occasion named, he
went there and filled his Jug with cider and didn't
think that respondent knew anything about il.
That he never had permission TO do so. but took
il on his own responsibility. Jonathan Ingram
testified on cross examination that be was haying
in the same lot with respondent and asked him
to bringfp some cider. Some time in the after
noon he went to a wagon standing near the barn
and found two-quart jug OF cider, which he and
others drank, and returned the jug where he
found it. He didn't see it brought there and
didn't know who did bring il there or where it
came from. He supposed respondent placed u
there and therefore offered to pay him, to which
he replied il was only vinegar and wouldn't take
auything The respondent offered no evidence,
The jury returned verdict OF guilty of one Of
fence. The court assessed fine of S25 and costs.
states Attorney Hit for the prosecution; Has
kins & Stoddard for defendant
state rs, Frank Gile.-lndictment for obtaining
. ,nnnav undpr false nretensps The evidence az
/ IN, state tended TO show that in July, 1891, the
resp ndent presented an order to l.. ). Walker OF
Graft for 50, signed by one David Wilbur, for
whom he had b en- at work. Mr. Walker recog-
niZrd that the signature was not that Of Mr.. VIII
bur and spoke to the respondent about it, where
upon he said that Wilbur did not sign il but
directed him to do so. Mr.. Walker knew that
" ilbur was an old man and not much in the habit
. of writing, and upon respondents assurance that
lac. was authorized to write Mr.. Wilbur's name Ia
the order he cashed it to him. The evidence
further tended TO show that Mr.. Wilbur did not
. authorize the respondent 10 sign his name to the
order and knew nothing of ii until his attention
was called to it by Walker
The evidence of respondent tended TO show thai
/ Wilbur did authorize him 10 sign said order, and
] had done so on other occasions; that wilbur was
/ at the time owing him for work and gave the or
der TO him as above. The jury found the respond
ent guilty. StaJe's Attorney Hit and Waterman
for state; Cudworth and Allbee Tor respondent:
state rs. Watson S. French dpt.-Complain
for furnishing Intoxicating liquor which came M
TO this court on an appeal. The evidence OF TN
state tended 70 show that somr two years ago the
defendant treated one VIM Metty OF BratteOor'
to three or four drinks of wine from bottle a
different times on the same day lhat IN Jun
last he took to the house Of Metty bottle o
wine from which two or three drinks were taken
and then sold the balance 10 Mrs, Metty Tor D
cents.
The defendants evidence tended to sho'
that the drinks furnished Metty from the bottl
some two years ago were a certain compound o
That Metty was i'll at the time and detendent lt
him have II simply as a medicine, which seeme
| to give relief and that the wine taken 10 Metty
house in June last was owned by defendant
housekeeper, Miss Quinn, and that sue TOOK
/ Chesterfield: that Miss . linn bought il Of d
PENDANT in Hinsdale ~ H., before they start-
from home, and the price thereof was to be d
for the prosecution; j. G. Martin for the defen
ant