The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1893-09-16
FIFTH EDITION.
CAPTAIN MILLMAN CO.'S FREE,
The Jury AdJudge Him Not Guilty OF
stripping the uco-Fortuer ms, Trtus

1
The Jury AdJadge Him Not Guilty OF
Stripping the Bco-Foriner on Trial.
The United States Court reconyeued
yesterday afternoon, and after Mr..
Biggs, for tho defense, presented sew.
erul witnesses, the jury adJudged Cap.
tain Millman not guilty OF stripping
| the wrecked schooner William q. Bee.
which went down In the gale OF Au.
gust "a while Off Cedar Beach. Tho
jury rendered the verdict without
lenvlng the box.
| The witnesses were then discharged
from any further attendance at Court.
THIS MORNINGS SESSION.
When court convened this morning
| District Attorney Watson stated that
he was ready In the case OF John III.
Fortner, indicted for selling LIQUOR
without a government license al
Blackbird :,
This was the Jury empaneled: y
| VIM. Wlngate, foreman. Henry M.
Tunnel, Joseph J. Handy, William
| Green, Robert CottinRhum, John L.
Harrington, Ezekiel Fleming, William
| Baxter, Samuel j. Mccall, William O.
Wier and Robert Donovan.
District Attorney Watson challenged
d. W. Truitt. Mr.. Sanborn, who re.
presented Fortner, challenged George
| ~ .hObhuy huh nlHull.
| MIR. Watson In presenting Fortner's
case stated that he only wanted to try
he Que case against the defendant.
There arc two charges against him,
but he was satisfied with the verdict,
whatever 1t might DO, in one OF the
| cases.
Tho law provides that no retail II.
quor dealer shall sell over five gallons
| OF Intoxicating liquors at one sale.
The case was then begun.
Jamos Pryor WAS the first witness
called by the prosecution. On Docem.
Der 10th. 1892, he purchased a drink of
pear cider. Former had the cider In
the cellar Of his own homo. The wit.
moss denied having stated to Mr. Wat.
son that he purchased stale lager beai
from MIR. Iortner. This statement
as claimed by Mr.. Watson, was made
while he was examining the witness
before he entered the charge against
the defendant.
This contrary statement, Mr.. Watson
stated. was because the witness had
been tempered with by the defendant.
lie thought he therefore had perfecl
right to c .ntradiGt his own witnesses.
lie read from the law, which sustained
| his argument.
The witnesses admitted that Fort
| nor and n man named DuHadaway.
had told him they did not think his.
| the witness, services would be needed
by the court. Former, himself, told
the witness that IL ne would 20 home
there would DO nothing done In the
case.
lie denied having stated before thai
he purchased two bottles of clder on
the day the indictment charges the de,
PENDANT. He only drank one glass. He
again denied that he told Mr., Watson
that IL WAS stale beer he had purchased,
| On cross examination, lie never saw
anything exposed for sale but soft
drinks. 1t was not lager beer he
bought.
Daniel Burton was sworn and testi.
fled that Fortner chad not paid a
special tax as n retail liquor dealer.
The witness called on SIr. Fortner
about two years ago. but refused to
take out license as he claimed he
was not selling Intoxicating LIQUOR
Last fall the witness was talking Ia
Mr.. Pryor when he stated that he had
purchased beer from Fortner. In the
spring he again told him OF buying
boar from Fortner
The witness stated that for many
years beer mas teen bottled In bolt
bearing labels class ing the drink "a
pear cider. When Mr. ForLnsr told
the witness he could go throu II hi.
house he found several dem lolnn
aud liquor casks but no liquo;.
The government then rested Mr.,
Sanborn addressed the court that ha
did not think the @%osecutlon hnd
made out Its case and therefore asked
that the court instruct the Jury 10
render a verdict OF not guilty. He
had not presented one syllable OF eyl.
dence to lshow that Pryor had pur-
chased malt liquor for when he was
Indicted.
Mr.. Watson reviewed Deputy Col
lector BurtonB testimony In relation
10 Pryors statements or the purch. SO
Of the liquor. lie could see no tastL
mony that could he more damaging.
Inc truth IL as clear as the MONDAY
sun that lie purchased lager beer from
tortner. lie thought the motion a
prcposterouS QUE. Pryor had seon iii
TO recalcitratu his statements ana tlgk-
surprise tho government In order 10
shield the defendant.
The defence then began.
John II, Furtner, the defendant tes.
titled that lie never sold any inLOYicat.
ing liquor. He sold soft drinks and
neTer IN his life sold intoxlcatiua
liuuOr.
On cross examination he stated that
he purchased tho soft drinks from d
lliddletown huttler. lie denied hay.
ing bought and sold the liquid as stale
| lNHbT UeeI.
John Lockerman testified TINT hu
had been going to Mr.. Formers house
for two years and never know him To
sol any Intoxicating liquor lie. him
self, had drank pear cider there, but
never any liquor.
James Thornton knew thu defendant
ard had been at his house several
times. On one occasion he asked Mr.
Fortncr what he had to drink. when
no replied lie had nothing but soft
drinks. He know liquor and drank
the cider, but it was not liquor.
Jacob Richardson, Henry Walker
and Charles Jones had been to Mr..
Fortner's place and drank pear cider.
IT. was not an Intoxicating liquor
which he bought.
Tho defense then rested. Both sides
submitted the case to the jury and
they retired.
Mr.. Watson asked that the three
/ charges against Julia lIanrahnn be re.
mitted to the Circuit Court in October.
The continuance was granted.
All the petit Jurors wers discharged
until Monday morning at IL O'Clock.