The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-06-03
A LIVELY TRIAL AT TYBEE.

Lane Fined and Naylor Acquitted OF
Selling Liquor Without License.
The main room In the little frame build
ing on Tybee Island, which is the seat OF
government for the municipality
crowded last night. The at
traction that drew the crowd was the trials
of James Lane and James Naylor, both Of
whom were on the docket for selling liquor
without a license on May %.
AL the able-bodisd citizens Of Tybee were
present, and quite respectable delegation
from Savannah graced the room by its
presence. Mayor Alexander G. Ulmer dis
pensed justice, while 2. j. O'Connor, ESQ,
acted as prosecuting attorney. William Z.
Morrison and William l.. Clay looked after
the interests Of Lane aud Naylor respect
lively.
The first case taken mp
was Lanes. The main witness
| for the prosecution was Fred Kemp, q
| young Norwegian. He testified plainly and
explicitly as to a sale of bottle of whisky
at Lanes place May 90. Three other young
N en- were with him at the time OF the
alleged sale, but not one of them corrobor-
ated his story. A young man named
| Charles Jones testified that the bottle Of
whisky In question was not purchased at
Lanes. but, on the contrary, he brought the
| liquor from Savannah and went into Lanes,
borrowed glass from Bartender Nelson so
that he could regale his friends with the
contents of the bottle. Mr.. Kemp's efforts
to enlighten the mayor were not
always Ineligible, owing chiefly
to his linguistic deficiencies. Mr.,
Lane denied that he or any one
in his employ or at his place sold liquor on
the day in question, on his premises. The
mayor believed Kemp's story. as he fined
Lane 800, or In default thereof thirty days
IN the county Jail 1t was expected by Mr..
| Morrison that Australian" Kelly who is
! now In jail would be present as witness In
his clients be al!, but Sheriff Roman was
OF different opinion. The mayor was
willing that Kelly should be present but
declined TO be personally responsible for his
safe return, hence his detention.
After the Lane case was disposed of that
of Mr.. Naylor was taken I'D. The wit
| nesses In this case were about the same as In
the other, Mr.. Kemp bearing the brunt OF
the battle for the prosecution. He was
positive that he bought, drank and
paid for different kinds of liquors
rather shaky on the date. but
no amount Of cross-examining could shat
ter his statement in regard to the purchase
OF the liquor On the first round he drank
OF peculiar beverage called "ricen beer.
He could not distinguish it from any other
KIM OF Deer by the sense OF taste. 1t was
| called rice" beer, but he did not know
why 1t should not be called potato or tomato
beer. On the second round he had little
whisky from an "oldn lady. He was posi-
| tive that he bought it of au "old" lady, 20
whom he paid 55 cents. The other young
men drank various compounds, one of them
even showing decided preference for the
mysterious "rice' beer. The prosecution
put up but another witness, a worry gay
youth who answered TO the name
Of John Hilledge. lie was at Nays
lor's on the day in question. He
had something to drink there on another
| occasion. 1t was ice water. On the Mon
| day, When Kemp SAYS he bought liquor, he
was there by large majority, and took-a
package of cigarettes. Mr.. Hilledge was
excused, AID retired within himself. No
witnesses other than Kemp and Hilledge
were put up by either side in the Naylor
case.
Before the beginning of the trial Of Nay
lor his attorney, Mr.. Clay, demurred to the
whole proceedings, claiming that the offense
was not SET forth in the summons, the date
of the alleged selling of liquors not speci-
fled, and no ordinance was violated.
This was overruled by the
| mayor. At the conclusion of the
hearing Of testimony, MIR. Clay again OBJ
iected, this time to the insertion of the date
in the record at such a late day. The mayor,
however, found the otfense against Naylor
not proved. and ordered his dismissal.
Mr.. Morrison will take out a writ of cer-
tiorari, and will bring the whole question
OF Mr.. Lanes case to the superior court for
review.