Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1896-01-09
WHOLE NO. 24S9

hdu rlgnt TO. In fact, he anprilv told
Newcomb that he could not tell anvthino
, but the truth.
ROBERT Jones, colored man was next
called and he was lively witness. He
SAID that Wilson came to him and prom
lsed MIN suit of clothes if he would 90
TO Spencer's place and get some soft.
drinks and test their Intoxicating cana
! city. Robert did not think the nronos;-
tlon was an honest one and he did not
want any clothes unless he could get
| them honest.
Jones was not able to fix the date of
| this attempted deal of Wilson, but said
as near as he could come 10 it, it was last
summer. This was after tie date of the
complaint, and the Court ruled the testi-
mony out. Jones said h. drank some of
Spencer's cider, but it did not make him
drunk
William Ward was called, and said that
| Wilson came to him and wanted him to
testify against Spencer, but it was three
years ago, and the Court did not think it
was recent enough to have any connec-
ton with the case, and he was quickly
excused.
| The object of calling these witnesses
was to show that Wilson had malice in
making up these case.
| Joseph w. johnson was another disap-
pointment to the plaintiff. He was asked
if Wilson had any conversation with him
about convicting Spencer, and the wit
ness promptly answered no. He was
excused.
Philip Turpin said that he had no con-
versation with Wilson before the prose-
cution of the complaint in question, and
he too was allowed to depart.
Mr.. Mitchell called four witnesses but
they did not appear, and the case for the
plaintiff rested
1t was very evident that Mr.. Spencer
had greatly misrepresented his case to
his counsel, or it would not been occupy
ing the attention of the Court at this time.
Mr.. Newcomb for the defendant,
promptly argued for non-suit, making
a somewhat elaborate argument substan-
tiating his plea. He held that the plain
: tiff had failed entirely in presenting his
: case, and it was an injustice to Mr.. VIII
J son to put him upon his defense.
: Mr.. Mitchell for the plaintiff, notwitIl-
: standing the course his case had taken,
| strenuously opposed the motion for nom
) suit, and he argued at length against the
propositions advanced by Mr.. Newcomb,
: and he skillfully made his case yery
t much stronger than it had seemed when
: the evidence for the plaintiff had been
: concluded.
The Court refused to sustain the motion
to non-suit and the case went on.
3 The defense in the Spencer Wilson
5 case opened by placing Mayor of Mill
: vile Thomas Whitaker, on the stand,
3 who testified that Spencer had been con-
. victed of keeping disorderly house in
) Millville, in 1889.
r Court adjourned until tomorrow morn-
ing at 10 o'clock.
Wednesday Morning.
Court resumed promptly at 10 O'Clock
with Judges Ludlow, Hoagland, Hendee
and Ludlam ON the bench.
After the usual formality of opening,
Court began business by continuation
of the Spencer Wilson case.
: Lawyer Mitchell, for the plaintiff
moved to have ex-Mayor Whitaker's
the ground that it did not bear specifical-
ly on this case.
The Court overruled this testimony,
after considerable time had been consum-
ed by the attorneys, and the wheels of
Attorney Newcomb, for defense, offer
ed copies of two indictment found against
: Spencer in years '92 and '93 as evidence.
Andrew Wilson, the defendant in the
case, was placed on the witness stand.
, He testified that he had held official posi-
tions in organizations, the leading fea-
lures of which are to suppress crimes.
especially of the nature of which Spencer
i. is charged. Witness had nothing against
Spencer only the kind of business he did,
that of keeping disorderly house. He
had been convinced, by things he had
seen himself and by what he had heard
from other reputable persons that Spen-
Ger had been keeping disorderly place.
) Persons had told him that complaints
} had been made as to the kind of place
Spencer was keeping, and witness felt it
duty to take measure in the Courts to
suppress it. Intoxicated persons had
been seen at Spencer's place. The general
reputation of Spencer in Vineland was
bad.
Mr.. Mitchell, attorney for Spencer
fired red-hot volley of cross-examina-
ton into witness, but the defense set up
by him stood practically unshattered,
although somewhat weakened in parts.
Attorney asks, shave you any knowl-
edge of your own that Intoxicating Ii
} quors were sold at Spencer's placer?
} Charles Garrison, owner of the build
, ing in which Spencer kept his place,
added some damaging testimony. He
had seen many intoxicated persons about
the place and was anxious to have
Spencer remove from his premises.
Spencer only occupied two rooms, in
which he and his family, wife and two
children lived. The saloon was also kept
in these two rooms. The place became
very offensive.
Thorn loud talk curSinu and S1Near-