The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1892-04-20
Washington County Court.

State " II. E. Bliss. The respondent in
this case was charged with selling two
glasses Of lager beer, by his clerk, to one
Henry Fisher of Montpelier, in the month
of June, 1891. The state relied upon the evil
dence of the said Henry Fisher. who stated
that on two occasions in the month of June,
1891, he purchased two glasses of lager beer
from the clerk of Mr.. Bliss The defence
introduced evidence tending to show that
the state witness had disclosed on Bliss be-
cause he had some trouble with Bliss clerk,
and on that occasion he threatened to have
revenge. The jury returned verdict of
two first offences. Stanton for state; Lord
g. Boynton and Senter for respondent.
State V. Fred r. Stevens. This was an
information filed at this term of court,
charging the respondent with having fur
nished, in January, 1892, quantity of
liquor to one Charles Andrews, who was
then working at Lanesboro. The state in
troduced evidence tending to show that
Charles Andrews ordered from one Pitkin
of Woodsville, n. H., a quantity of liquor;
that said liquor was expressed to Marshtield;
that the respondent paid the express on said
liquor and ordered it sent to Lanesboro as,
owing to the grip, the said Andrews was in
need of the contents of the package. The
evidence of the state did not satisfy the
jury that respondent was in any way con-
nected with the party who shipped the
liquor from Woodsville Verdict, not guilty.
Stanton and Lamson for state; Wing & Fay
for respondent.
State V. Charles Celley. The respondent
in this case was charged with having made
an assault, the first of June, upon Pierce
WEIGH of Berlin. The state introduced the
evidence of Pierce WEIGH, who stated in
substance that he and one Michael Kelley,
about the first of June, had occasion to in
spect the premises Of Charles H. Celley in
Berlin, to see If certain rumors were true in
reference to the said Celley not having
rlxr 1rin hat a1
deceased; that Celley appeared on the
scene with doubled arreled shotgun and
ordered WEIGH and Kelley off his land, at
the same time cooking one barrel of the
gun; that Celley then put the gun down
and knocked WEIGH one rod, and gave
Kelley, who had come to the rescue of
WEIGH, sound thrashing. The respondent
took the stand in his own behalf, and stated
that WEIGH and Kelley assaulted him with
pitchforks, and that he barely escaped alive.
The jury returned verdict of guilty. STAN
ton and Lord for state; Wing & Fay for
respondent.
State V. Jane Lynch This was an in
formation filed at the last term of court,
charging respondent with keeping liquor
with intent to sell. The state introduced
the evidence of Sheriffs Jones and Cook
who testified that on the Goth day of Sep
TENDER, 1891, they searched the premises of
L. NJ. Lynch 81 Co.; that as they entered
the store small boy rushed up stairs where
respondent keeps a boarding house, and
that they followed the boy; that Jones on
entering the kitchen found respondent try
| ing to empty bottle of liquor into the sink
and that he took the bottle away from her
| in the presence of Cook; that Cook made a
| thorough search of the apartments and
found about ten bottles of liquor in differ
ent Places that respondent admitted to
Jones that they did keep liquor to sell, and
that they were obliged to in order to pay
their high rent; the evidence of the state
also tended to shew that 7. NJ. Lynch
| when the officers entered the store, sprung
his dump, which was loaded with liquor
The respondent claimed that she had no
| business connection with the store under
meath her apartments, and that the liquor
found up stairs belonged to her son, L. F.
Lynch, and that he kept the same for legiti-
mate purposes. Verdict of guilty, excep-
tons by respondent. Laird for the state
Lord & Boynton and Senter for respondent
State " Clinton Towne. This was an in
formation charging the respondent with
selling two glasses of whisky, in September
last, to Joseph Pecor of Montpelier, and the
state relied entirely upon the evidence of
the said Pecor to make out its case. The
respondent introduced evidence tending TO
show that he was not doing business in his
store on those occasions. The jury returned
verdict of not guilty. Boynton for state;
| Lord for respondent.
State V. James Kelley indicted for lar
| ceny, is now on trial.