The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1892-03-30

Jury as follows: "There have been some re-
marks made in the course of the argument
in regard to this law and its propriety or
impropriety. 1 need not say to you as
jurors, and sworn members of this court,
that neither court nor jury have anything
to do with whether the law is good or a
bad law. III either courts or juries acqut
man simply because they don't like the law;
If they fail to convict where the evidence
warrants a conviction,-they are guilty of
willful and corrupt perjury; II they do it in
tentionally, or If the proof is such that sat
is6es beyond reasonable doubt of the
guilt OF the accused, and they acquit simply
because they are not in favor of the law,
jurors who do so are guilty OF a willful and
corrupt violation of their oath as jurors"
The jury returned verdict of guilty. Lord
Il Senter for respondent; u. s. Stanton and
f. l.. Laird for the prosecution.
State v. Jacob Robinson.-T was a
prosecution against the respondent for SELL
ing Intoxicating liquor, contrary to law,
to one Charles Culbert in April last, and
the state claimed a conviction for four first
offences. The defendant pleaded not guilty
The young man Culbert stated that he
came to Montpelier, April 16, 1891, and went
to the respondents and got drink OF
whiskey for fifteen cents. The place he got
1t was No 122 Main street. He went out on
to the street, got shaved, and in a short
time went back and got another drink.
Then he got dinner at Huntington's, and
being kinder dry, got some more whskey
at Respondents He travelled around the
street again and then returned for another
drink at Robinsons. The witness fixed the
time of the first drink between half-past ten
and eleven, and the remainder between
that time and half-past three or four in the
afternoon. The cross examination did not
change materially the story as told in chief.
This was all of the evidence put in by the
state. On the part Of the respondent sew
eral witnesses were produced to testify in
relation to the presence in Robinson's
saloon OF the state witness. These wit
nesses were George S. West, Alexander
Campbell, Fred Hayes and Trstram Rob-
inson, brother of the respondent. In the
last-named case the testimony was read as
it was given at the last term. These wit
nesses all testified to being in the place
when Culbert came in; that he walked
| towards an inner room and was spoken to
by respondent, who said: "There's moth
ing for you in there" and that thereupon
there were some hard words and Culbert
said he was a good mind to go out on the
street and get full and swear it on to Rob-
inson." All four witnesses agreed as to
the refusal, and swore that Culbert got
nothing there, and did not come in before
noon, as they were all present until Jacob
went to dinner and closed up for the noon
recess. Tristram testified that Culbert did
not come in in the afternoon. Such, in
brief, was the testimony for the defence.
The jury found respondent guilty of four
first offences. A question arose as to in
creasing the bail. In the course of remarks
incident thereto, respondents counsel urged
that Robinson "had gone out of the busi-
ness" To which the presiding judge re-
marked, What difference does that make
in respect of the offences he has COM
mitted? In the case of a man convicted of
having stolen a horse, would it have any
| bearing on the case to say he had gone out
of the business ?' The bail was increased
to $3.50 In all the state cases the court has
notified counsel that bills of exceptions
must be drawn up and filed before court
adjourns or sentences will be imposed.
State v. Henry Brassaw-This respond
ent pleaded !" not guilty" to charge of
stealing light overcoat, the property OF
Henry A. White, blacksmith, residing at
Montpelier 1t appeared from Whites
testimony that on the 2Sth of November he
worked for himself in a shop on the Berlin
side Adjoining the shop was shed, aud
hanging in this shed was the coat in queS-
ton In the evening, when White locked
for his overcoat, it was gone. On that day
the respondent had had horse shod and
had put the horse in this shed. About two
months later respondent was seen in Mont
pelier by White, and was wearing the coat
that had been stolen Respondent was ar
rested and tried before Justice Smile. An
appeal was taken to this court The de-
ence was that Brassaw had obtained this
coat from man in September; that he
swapped horse for three dollars, a watch
and this coat. Two witnesses were intro.
duced who swore to seeing the trade made,
and they identified the coat as the same one.
Other witnesses swore to having seen re-
spondent wear the coat in September.
The jury after brief absence returned
verdict of guilty. Thereupon, there being
no exceptions, the respondent was sem
fenced to sixty days in the house of correc-
tion. Stanton and T. j. Boynton for the
state; Lord and T. X. Gordon for respon.
dent.
The case of State " Dan Boyce was then
called, and a jury empaneled.