The Portland daily press., 1896-01-27

of years by taking false oath by direo-
tion of this guardian OF our lawsP -
1.-The words were meant as a protest
against the dangers of the spotter sys-
tenn, dangers that would lead the spott@r
to commit perjury. and the officers to
overstep the bounds of proprietyn
Never before, to witnesses knowledge
had such criticism of the spottsr SYSTEM
appeared in the Express
| "Why didn't you say that you mea,
that as criticismlof theEspotter systemY''
81 am unable to answer that ques ion.''
"When you said 'by direction If this
guardian of cur laws, you meant it did
net you?"
! eyes"
The quotation from the Bridgton News
WIS by witnesses authority.
| Witness never caused to be published
any retraction of the articles.
Witness couldn't say that it was the
custom to send out marked copies of the
Express.
| AS to copies Of the Express, con tanning
articles about the "spite" case, the arti-
Gle In suit or report of the trial. witness
didn't know whether marked copies
were sent out or not.
''Was criminal libel served upon you
for writing this article?
! This question was excluded. Dlreet
resumed.
After Jan. LIST '9i. facts came to
witt ess's owletdge which changed his
mind as to the Efficiency and faithfulness
OF Hummer as liquor deputy. Prior
to April 1st, '94 witness wrote an article
entitled the County Commissioners
Report" Before writing that witness
had received information prejudicial to
the liquor deputies, as a whole
| The County Commissioners article
was again offerad and again excluded
The defense offered at this time the
bond of Chas. s. SWEET in the sum Of
$500, given Col. Dow, after the first seiz-
ure that he would not sell liquor.
| Mr.. Noble did not object to this. but
said that it WAS personal bond and
there were no sureties.
1t was also admit ed that no suit was
ever brought on the bond. Mr.. Noble
ssid that the bond was given April 16,
and yet SWEET hal DIN tilted that he sold
liquor down to May lst. Mr.. Coombs
| denied this.
CLERK OF COURTS STONE.
Benz. G. Stone, clerk of courts, took
the stand. with the docket for 1895. He
read the entry in regard so the nuisan ce
Indictment against SWEET and it's being
| here.
In rebuttal the plaintiff called to the
| stand
GEORGE F. GOULD
judge of the Municipal court in 1894. He
presided at the trial of SWEET. The
state had no counsel At the time Of
Bartlett's false statements Deputy Sher-
lift Plummer stepped to the witnesses
desk and spoke in a low tone, not
whisper. He said ''Jufgs.' The judge
interrupted and said. Didn't you say
to me that you did send the boy.''
Plulnmer replied, Eyes, did. The boys
lying" While Bartlett was testifying.
witness said to him, Do you mean TO say
to the court that Mr.. Plummer did not
send you to the Durant house?" This
vas after Plummer told witness that
BARTLETT was lying, Prior to the tiial
Plu miner told witness what evidence he
had against the Durant house Witness
had known Plummer for fifteen years.
"Do you know what Mr.. Plummer's
reputation was for integrity and verac-
ity?" MIR. Heath o. cted. Judge
Strout said that the att OK Of the paper
was upon Piunlner in lis fficial capao-
ity and he did not understand it as an at
tack upon him as q citizen.
Mr.. Noble argued that the plaintiff
| would maintain that The article attack
ed him as a citizt n in the matter CT SUBJ
ornation of perjury.
The judge ruled that witness might Re
asked W hat Plulnmer's reputation was
as an officer.
Witness said that he didn't know.
Cross examined by Mr.. Coomhs. wit
nesss recollection was that Plummer told
him that he had sent a man to the Du-
rant house to buy liquor and would put
him ON the stand. Therefore hit the time
Bartlett denied he had been sent by
Plummer, it had occurred 10 the witness
that that was possibly false.
Witness declared that before the trial
Mr.. COOmbs knew that Plummer had
told the judge that he had sent aiman
and would bave him rs witness.
He didn't know whether he told
Coon BIS or Coombs told him. 1t was in
the 1aftprSc Otfina thau ia pd of 1T
After Bsrtlett's perjury witness did not
inform the defense of the fact that he
knew it. The defense was put in with
out Witness saving anything about it.
He oross-examined SWEET while In posses
sion of the fact that BARTLETT had not told
the truth.
Before the trial, witnesses recollection
was that Plummer told him that he had
two witnesses who had bought beer there
and with ss's impression was that
Plummer said that he sent one OF them.
Witness could not be sure just how he
told MIR Coombs about the witnesses,
whether he conveyed the fact about
Plummer's sending witness or not.
The reason that the witness did not
call the defense's attention to his knowl-
edge of tho perjury of Bartlett was be-
cause the case had attracte much atten-
tion and he thought it would be better
for the parties involved in the case, IL
the defense should come out and tho case
be ettled on its merits rather than have
the case disn Used at once as he ordi-
narily should do.
Mr.. Heath withdrew his objection to
the question as to the honesty and in
tegrity of plnintiff. Judge Gould was
asked about the plaintiffs general repu-
tation as to honesty and integrity at the
time of the trial He replied that it WAS
j good.
Rev. S. T. Pearson testified that he
had known Plummer for seventeen years
intimately and that his reputation for
honestv and integrity in "a was good.
Justin S. Libby, Frank Lowell over
seer of the moor, and Hall L. Davis, all
testified that they had known Plnmmer
for many years and that in '94 his repu-
tation for honesty and integrity was
good.
Ex-Sheriff Cram testified that he had
a talk with Charles S SWEET after April
s. 1874. Mr.. Heath objected to his telling
what it was they said, contending that
Swett's sta ement that Cram told him
that the first seizure was aimed against
Col. Dow was brought OFT on cross-ex-
amintion. Judge Strout ruled it out.