Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1892-01-21

dime novel;
IL looked for q moment as if counsel
would require the district-attorney to
fetch the Secretary of the Treasury here
from Washington to prove the status of
the document.
This he quickly disclaimed, but did
demand certificate from the proper
authority in Washington that the gray
pamphlet is q contemporaneous docu-
ment and has the authority and current
recognition of the department. These,
he added, are simply office rules made
by commissioner of revenue under the |
direction of Secretary of the Treasury.
They are not laws. The authority for
this document, that is of its existing |
status must come from the fountain
head-from no commissioner of revenue.
The rules were issued in August of |
1885. They may have been cancelled |
since then.
District-attorney Watson expressed
his surprise at counsel's estimate of the
pamphlet. II bore upon its face prima
facie evidence of truth. 1t had the treas
ury department imprint and came to the
court regularly through the mails.
Mr.. Bird addressing the court)-"I
don't say that he should have the Secre-
tary of the Treasury here in person, but
| do say the government prosecutor
should have had in hand and in evil
dence the certificate of the promulga-
ton of the rules"
The court reserved its decision on the
mooted point.
DR.. Henry Lefferman, the Philadel-
phia analyst, next testified that he had
subjected the sample to investigation
and had found it to be oleomargarine
In reply to Judge Wales the witness
defined the article as made from three
substances-olein, margarin and stearin.
The last is taken away, being a
hard fat suitable only for candles and
other commercial commodities. The
other two are used in the manufacture
of oleomargarine, being soft fats and
thus more resembling butter. The "g''
in the word is properly pronounced
hard. 1t is also mistake, ety.
mologically, to add the final &C." But
the error in spelling has crept in and
seems now impossible to eradicate.
Mr.. Bird then spoke He said the in
dictment is founded on the act of Con
gress of August I'd, 1886. The testimony
does not show any record of the de-
PENDANT taking out a license for the sale
OF oleomargarine.
There was misunderstanding on this
point and Revenue Officer Burton was
brought on the stand again to restate
what he had said He confirmed Mr..
Birds understanding of the testimony
adduced.
Court adjourned at p. m. until Tues
day morning.
The Carey oleomargarine case was
resumed in the United States district
court Tuesday morning. After the rules
prescribed by the commissioner of inter-
nal revenue and approved by the Secre-
tary of the Treasury had been admitted
as evidence Levi O. Bird, Esq, outlined
the defence.
Robert p. Carey, ST., the defendant,
was called to the stand. He said he has
been in the meat and produce business
in this city for 80 years and has sold
oleomargarine for IL or IA years. When
the special tax was put on he took out a
special tax. May 9th, the date men
toned in the indictment, he had about
$50 pounds of print butter, 600 to 700
pounds of oleomargarine and about 800
pounds of tub butter. Some OF the
oleomargarine was on his counter and
some was in a refrigerator. He then
employed three clerks and delivery
| boy. He said he always sold as pre-
scribed by law, and never sold oleo-
margarine as butter
On cross-examination Mr.. Carey said
he believed the clerks read the law.
They wrapped oleomargarine in paper
/ n MI az nod IL Ia - . 4,
stamp after his arrest and he took out
his license in April, 1891. Witness said
he did not believe oleomargarine went
out of his store except lawfully. Coun-
sci for the defence objected to some
questions asked, whereupon the district
attorney remarked, II do not propose to
be bamboozled out Of the case this way"
Mr.. Bird continued to object and said
the district attorney had a right to cross
examine, but had no right to attempt to
build up his case.
W. A. Holt testified that he was en-
ployed by defendant from period four
years before last May until two months
ago. MI. Carey, he said, did big cleo
margarine business, especially on market
days. The clerks were required to sell
in stamped packages some time before
May 9Th. When they started to sell
orleomargarine Mr.. Carey told them to
sell it as oleomargarine. Witness bust
ness was TO see that the oleomar-
garine was ON the counter and
marked. He never saw oleomargarine
sold as butter.
John Comfy and Mrs. Elizabeth Nc
Caulley, who were employed as clerks
by Mr.. Carey, corroborated the pre-
ceding witness.
Alexander Everson, Christiana hun
bred farmer, testified that he has been
coming to Wilmington market for &c
years and has stand in front of Mr.
Garey's door, He saw defendant sell
oleomargarine many times. When he
was asked whether he had ever seer
Mr.. Carey sell in violation to the pre-
scribed rules he was advised TO MOI
answer.
Deputy Collector of Internal Revenue
Daniel Burton testified that he frequently
officially visited Mr.. Garey's store. HI
went to see if Mr.. Carey sold in com
piance with the revenue law. Mr.
Carey nor his clerks did not know whel
witness was coming. So far as he coult
,, ascertain Mr.. Carey conducted his bust
ness lawfully.
This closed the testimony, and Mr.
, Bird asked Judge Wales to rule that tn,
defendant had not violated the law, an(
cited authorities to show that princi
pal is not responsible for the crimina
acts of his agents unless done by hi
t express authority, command, or undo
: his orders.
S Court took a recess until 2 o'clock.
E Immediately after the reasscmbling 0
/ the United States district court Tues
: day afternoon District-attorney Watson
opposed the request made in the morn
q ;ng NV Levi G. Bird. ESQ. the de