Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1895-12-06
WHAT Is 1T ?
Eddys' "Hop Beer" On Trial.

BaIItns---ProsecutiOn OF the Hotels.
mighty interestin' readin' " would be
the complete story of the movement TO en-
force in BrattlebOro the law prohibiting the
sale of Intoxicating liquors. Undoubtedly
the first chapter would be an account of
the May meeting of the board of bailiffs,
when il was decided that the board should
do what it could to have the law enforced.
The last chapter is still to be written.
This weeks installment of the story in
cludes record of the hearing Tuesday in
the case Of the State against the beer
seized at the bottling establishment of {.
H. Eddy d Co., Nov. n The case was
originally set for the 23d of last month,
but was continued until Tuesday of this
week. The hearing, which was before JUS
tice L. Z. Adams of Marlboro, was held in
the Estey Guard company room at the e.
lot street armory. The audience on both
Tuesday and Wednesday included a goOdy
number who believe in law and its en-
forcement. and who are especially inter
ested in the result of the present proceed
ings. States Attorney Fits appeared for
the state and X. Haskns and Geo. b. Hit
for the claimants, c. II. Eddy d Co.
Mr.. Hit, as counsel for the claimants,
called for trial by jury. The states attOr-
ney objected to this on the ground that it
was a trial ia rem, that is, against the
thing, and that there was no precedent for
the granting of trial by jury in such a
case In addressing the court, the states
attorney cited the action of a member of
Mr. Hits firm, who as counsel for the vii
lage of Brattleboro had taken the same
ground in the case OF the State against the
liquor seized at Gales d Esterbrooks's S. The
court ruled that the claimants were not
entitled to a trial 10y jury.
c. II. Eddy was called by the state and
testified that he had sold "Eddy's hop
| beer for about two years. To the ques-
ton whether the beer seized was what had
| been sold under the above name, objection
was raised and the court held that he need
not answer,
! The state then called as witnesses, Pat
! rick Manning, Deputy Sheriff NJ. NJ. Mar
! tin, exPolice Officer c. c. Turner,
! Police Officers Z. ). Hall and F. L. Childs,
and John Calvin, j. J. Eckles, and L. L.
Parker, members of the board of bailiffs.
The testimony was introduced for the pur-
pose OF showing that some OF the liquor
seized at places in this village Nov. g had
been labeled 'Eddys hop beer" that the
liquor seized had been kept securely and
and that the different lots seized had been
marked so as to be easily identified.
The testimony of the three bailiif,
brought out what had been known TO bu
few outside the board, that two bottle:
from each Of six lOts-those from In,
places of I. Manning, Vim. brisbane, I. J
Manning. John Wright, VIM. Adams, anC
| belongs night lunch-had been sent fo
analysis 10 the firm OF West Il Jenne o
Boston. The baiiifis knew exactly wha
they did and when they did il, and thei
statements could not be shaken on th'
crOss-ex animation, the crowd being espec
tally amused by Ar. Eckles's remarks anC
his replies to Mr.. Hit, who was endeavor
ing to tangle him up. Even the claimants
for the beer enjoyed laugh al the eX
pense of their own attorney.
The bailiffs' testimony in brief was this
Twelve bottles of liquid had been takeI
from the stock al the lookup by Mr.. Gal
win. Mr. Eckles had made a record o
each lot Mr.. Parker had likewise made
record and had taken them in charge. Mr.
Parker testified TO taking the bottles to hi
shop, packing them in sawdust in a woodel
box, mailing the box with eight penny wiz
nails, taking it to the express offic
Monday, Nov. Is paying the charges an
leaving the box in the care of the company
Edward y. Stevens was then called. Ii
stated that he was a shipper in the empo
of the firm of West a Jenne. wholesal
drug dealers of Boston, that he remembers
, the arrival of box from Brattleborc
Here his testimony had an abrupt end, tn
claimants attorneys stating that objectio
, would be raised 10 the admission of TIA
analysis Of any liquor except that seized a
7 c. II. Eddy d Co.'S.
The question was argued at some length
2 the claimants holding that this was n
q only liquor on trial and that the analysis {
z any other was irrelevant The state hel
E that beside the analysis of the liquor, seize
which he would put in later, he should
] allowed TO put in evidence the analysis {
other beer sold by the same firm, to estal
: fish on the one hand that beer similar I
l that seized had been sold and that til
: liquor seized was intended for sale, an
= on the other hand to prove the effects
I beer similar to that seized. The claimant
conceded that the beer was for sale, bI
e claimed that it was neither intoxicatin
D nor malt liquor.
The court held, after listening to arg
ments, that the result of the analysis of IL
samples sent TO West q JENNIE was not a,
: mis- sible.
The state then asked an adjournmel
A.. until Wednesday at IL o clock and at tn
h time asked a further continuance on IL
ground that the chemist, who had analyze
some of the beer taken at c. II. Eddy
Co.'S, and who was expected TO arri
that morning, could not be present tn
l week. The case, after an hours discu
sion, was continued to Tuesday, Dec
c at 10 O'clock in the morning