Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1894-02-15
In DISTRICT COURT.
The Selection of a Jury Diff
cult, Occupying the En-
tire Day.
mot Guilty" Says the Jury in
the Winfield Baldwin
Case.
A Number Of Prisoners Sem
fenced for Offenses Com
mitted.
IN DISTRICT COURT.
From Mondays Daily.

From Mondays Daily.
The greater part of the session today
was occupied in the selection Of jury
to try the case of the State vs.. Winfield
Bald win for the maintaining a nuisance.
A list of ten names was placed in the
hands of the sheriff to fill up the panel,
and until these were secured the case
dragged.Up to a late hour this afternoon
but SIX jurors had been received and the
prospect of securing twelve men today
looked rather slim.
Just before the opening OF court this
afternoon considerable amusement was
furnished those in the court room by the
appearance Of Pat Burke, who vas look
ing for trouble. In loud voice he pro-
ceeded to inform the spectators some i'm
portant fact, but had gone no farther
than 'I'll tell you what, boys!' when be
was taken in charge by a bailiff. From
his appearance and manner one would
judge that he had been looking upon
that object which is said to be red and
stiugeth like an adder.
From Tuesdays Daily
Business began in Judge Roses court
today with the case of the State against
Winfred Baldwin, the jury being secured
by the hour Of closing last night.
Motions and demurrer, similar to those
made at the previous trial of defendant
were made, excepted, and made part of
the records in the case.
The prosecution opened by calling the
city engineer, B. P. Tilden to the stand
to testify to the location of the drug
store Of the defendant. He was followed
by Ed. Russell, who testified that he had
bought liquor at the drug store of the
defendant at least five times, and that
he had bought drinks there at the same
time on which occasions be had pur-
chased liquors IN bulk. Witness was on
the stand later in the morning for re-
examination.
A. w. Wiedeman on the stand stated
that he had bought mixed drinks, for
medical purposes, at the place of bust
ness of the defendant.
Geo. W. Masters testified that he had
purchased liquors without signing the
receipt book required by law. He was
followed by Jake Cooper who stated that,
in company with Mr.. Wedeman, be had
entered the place of business of the de-
fendant and there drank and bought
liquor, and that the book had not been
signed.
Barney Darling, who was the last wit
ness called by the state, stated that he
had never gotten any liquors Of the de-
fendant without signing therefor. When
it was intimated to him by the state tha!
he had bought twelve bottles Of the de.
fendant during one afternoon be denied
the allegation and insinuation.
Winfield Baldwin, one of the proprie
tors of the drug store where the nuisance
is alleged to have existed, was tho frs,
witness called by the defense He statec
emphatlcally that DO liquors were sold al
his place OF business except as required
by law, and denied in toto the testimony
of proceeding witnesses.
Dr. D. Baldwin, who was Gu the stanC
but short time, testified that certif
Gates we're never signed in blank, a:
alleged, and that the conduct of the
drug store business was legal and moi
according to the manner alleged.
Immediately after the noon recess the
introduction of testimony on both sides
was closed by the introduction on the
part of the defense the druggists permi
for the year 1892 issued to the defendant
Attorney Newman introduced the fol
lowing motion: The defendant nov
moves the court to advise the jury to
bring IN verdict of mot guilty on the
ground that there is no evidence to show
that the defendant kept place where
intoxicating liquors were sold as bever
age and where Intoxicating liquors were
kept for sale as beverage.
The court elucidated its position in the
case in accordance with the law and then
without argument by either side, the
case was presented to the jury and the
following charge given: "Gentlemen OF
the jury. The court advises you tc
bring in a verdict OF not guilty or rather
to bring in verdict that, We, the jury, dc
find that the defendant was not guilty
of keeping nuisance. and that the
premises in question were not kept for q
nuisance. But | want to caution you
that YOU are not bound by this advice
but You can follow yonr own dictates, in