The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1892-04-13
Washington County Court.

The following liquor cases were disposed
OF by pleadings OF guilty being entered by
the several respondents named:
A. w. Spaulding-charged with keeping
liquor with intent to unlawfully sell, furnish
and give away the same, contrary TO law.
The respondent was convicted last term of
keeping a nuisance. The present case is
prosecution for keeping the liquor, the find
ing OF which caused verdict of guilty in
the nuisance case.
State " John Chimney. This case mo.
2lD was a prosecution for keeping nui-
sance. 1t was lried last term and resulted
in disagreement of the jury. This term
the respondent withdrew his plea of not
guilty and pleaded guilty in this case and in
No. 2l8. its companion, for keeping intoxi-
eating liquor for unlawful sale.
State v. Timothy Lynch, for keeping in
toxicating liquor with intent to uniawfully
sell the same; plea Of guilty entered
State V. j. A. Locklin. Prosecution for
keeping and maintaining a common null
sance. The respondent withdrew his plea
of not guilty and pleaded guilty.
State v. II. e. Bliss. This respondent
pleaded guilty in twin cases-one for main
tanning common nuisance. and another
for keeping Intoxicating liquor for unlawful
sale, furnishing or giving away.
State v. George Wheeler was another of
the companion cases, and in each plea of
guilty was entered.
State " George Wade. This respondent
was charged with keeping nuisance on
the Sd of July, 1891, at place in Mont
pelier village known as No. 40, South Main
street. The state relied for a conviction
upon evidence tending to show that the sa-
loon in question was place resorted to, so
as to make the place a common nuisance
within the meaning of the statute, and that
liquor was found there under such circum-
stances as warranted the finding that it was
kept there for unlawful sale. The state in
troduced the evidence of Sheriff Howe Cap
tain Bates of Mortified and Mr.. Boyce
/ from Roxbury, who detailed the circum-
stances of finding Intoxicating liquor on re-
spondent's premises. They also found what
is locally known as dump" The find
ing OF liquor was uncontradicted as was
the fact that near the time in question re-
spondent had been the keeper of the premises
mentioned in the complaint. The chief
controversy was on the point as to whether
the saloon in question was place of COM
mon resort at the time alleged. The state
called four or five witnesses who at or about
the time stated-namely, July 3, 1S91-said
men had been seen in the saloon, in twos
or four and five at a time. To meet and
overcome this evidence, the respondent re-
lied upon six or eight witnesses, whose tes-
timony tended to show that the salo IN was
in fact closed and posted " as closed at
the time in question. There was a good
chance for a reasonable doubt as to whether
the place was in fact "opened for business"
on the date named though the state claimed
that if not actually commenced, it was the
purpose of the respondent to shortly COM
mence his nefarious business. The jury re-
turned verdict of not guilty, and the
respondent was discharged.
State V. William Miller. This respondent
was tried on an information filed at this
term, charging him with keeping intoxi-
eating liquor for illegal sale. The jury dis
agreed, and it being the purpose of the
! court to call fresh batch of Jurors at the
| present term of court, the states attorney
set the case down for trial again at the pres
ent term.
State v. Charles Wade was a prosecution
for keeping house of ill-fame in Berlin
In this case, also, the jury disagreed, and it
was set down for re-trial at the present term
State v. Thomas Willette. This respond
ent was charged with the larceny of a ham,
mer belonging to George w. Mann of Barre
The evidence relied upon by the state as
tending to show that the respondent was
! the party who took the hammer, was about
as follows: In March, 1891, the respondent
worked for George w. Mann, and left his
employ about the end of that month. Soon
after he quit, Mr.. Mann missed drilling
hammer used by himself and some of his
workmen on his quarry. Search was made
for it, but it could not be found, and was
! given up as lost. A few months afterwards
one Jennette, an employe of Mr.. Mann, was
at the quarry of George Cassie, and, while
talking to a workman there named William
| Charbono, he saw hammer in CharbOno's
possession which he thought he recognized
as the hammer Mr.. Mann had lost. Having
while he worked for Mann, used this same
hammer, he asked Charbono to let him see
! it; closer examination of the hammer sat
! istied him that it was the same hammer. In
view of information conveyed to him, Mr.
Mann and his foreman, one Mayo, went to
| see Charbono and enquired for the hammer
which, after some reluctance, Charbono
gave up. AS explanatory of his possession
| of it, Charbono said he purchased it of
Thomas Willette. Thereupon proceedings
were commenced against the respondent
before justice of the peace in Barre, and
the respondent was convicted. He took an
appeal, and the case came into the county
court on that appeal. The respondent con-
coded and testified that he did sell the ham
mer in question to Charbono; and as ex-
| planatory OF his own possession of it, he
said that one night on his way home, and
before he left Mr.. Mann's employ, he was
met by stranger, who, after some CONVEX
sation, asked him if he would purchase
hammer, producing one, for dollar. He
| gave the unknown man seventy-tive cents
for the hammer, put in new handle, and
sold it to Charbono for dollar and seventy
| five cents. He had been in the business of
buying and selling hammers that way, he
said. This was about the whole OF the de-
| fence. The jury was not inclined to be-
lieve Mr.. Willette's explanation of the pos
session of the hammer, and returned ver-
! dict of guilty. Mr.. Hoar and Mr.. Boynton
for the respondent; Mr.. Stanton and Mr..
Martin for the state. The respondent was
sentenced to pay fine of twenty dollars
ard costs.
The case against John O'Grady, for keep
| ing liquor with intent to SELL occupied the
court yesterday, and resulted in a verdict
of guilty. A similar case against IL. e.
! Bliss is now on trial