The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1895-12-06

! The tension above referred To Was
shown in the Eddy n Co. case as fan
| as it went Tuesday and Wednesday.
a continual wranglc which may well
| have made the onlookcr wonder if il
! was Il mock trial or n genuine pro
cceding TO suppress what the law pro,
| fesses to regard as among the gravcst
| of crimes When one of the lawyers
gets to the point where he habituaIly
| calls another "a little fool. )" when an
other gets anxious for muscular argu
ment with one Of the aldermen. and
offers are added Of face smasing' in
return for a personal dig offered by the
alderman, which the latter claimed
not TO have been aimed at him, and
when II good share of tho argument
was about the 'swcllcd heads of the
bailitfs for the part they have taken
or not taken. or whatever it was. in
the prosecution. it is evident that the
prosecutions have not been promotivc
Of the brothcrly love that ought To-
abound.
The proceeding was one in rem
against the beer seized at Eddy Il
Go. : establishment fortnight ago.
and was heard at the Armory before
Justice E. p. Adams, who is warmly
praised by both sides for the fairness
and good sense with which lac con
Quoted the case, which presented some
points to puzzle any lawyer. {. Ii. |
Eddy and Geo \. Eels. costituting the
firm of Eddy a Co., appeared as
claimants, They called for jury /
trial. but il was denied. Then the |
81 lt "a ,.n1tpI II l.
but his counsel objected on the ground |
evidence that might tend Ia criminate
himself, and he was excused. Then
the state went TO work to trace the
Eddy beer seized in the raid OF Nov. 9
from Eddy Go. : hands tn chemist
IN Boston who had made analysis of it.
,or two purposes. To- show that it was
If the same lot and the same kind of
beer that was scz,d in the raiu upon
.ddy Co. Il week later ami rs tending {
q show an Intrht to sell beer like that {
cizcd. The defense objected. bur the
'uurt admitted il for the latter purpose ,
MY and finally the defense admitted
hat ii was Intended to be sold and j
untrary Ia Law if found to he contra i
'and. Officers Hall and Martin. who /
clpcd in the eizurc of Nov 9th and ,
iessrs +. l.. Parker. j. j. Fcclrs and ;
onn Calvin of the board of hailiffs {
'stitiei to identify the beer and show t
hat II WAS in their control after the
nlHurc until samples were shipped to /
'0stun. The defense. fearing what | 4
his analysis might show if admitted. d
'sted un The theory that the beer c
hight have been 'docturcd. = and the C
ross examination was to this effect ! h
nj helped along the cNaspiration. C
Thos. II. Farmer of the West X b
emmy laboratory of Boston. was the Il
lemist who made this analysis which o
supposed Ia have shown much h
rger percentage of alcohol than that &
Druggist chapm which showed d
1ly one and 10 100 per cent. The k
ate insisted that Farmers ANALYSIS 4
/. admitted Ia show that the beer in d
eases in strength with agp. The a
Tense insisted that whatever might L,
: shown. whether fairly and correctly Z,
not. about the beer of Nov. q seiz- n,
". had nothing ia 10 with this beer n,
lied later which was before the Il
'urt on the question whether it spc- T
ficallv should be- condemned ar not ii
lsitc'e Adams excluded il. with a al
nsiblc illustration as between cider b,
" and old. but male uRc qualiiica- III
~ that IL The ircr &c the tuu seizures
NH l'r connected a. the sautr lnt -
e a"ait SIS wuuid i,r admissible. The ne