The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1897-11-17
Circuit Court.

The people VS. |. +. Hamilton; motion
quash information denied. In this case
the respondent is charged with violat-
ing the local option law. 1t appeared
on the examination before the justice
that the liquor alleged to have been
purchased at respondents place of busi-
ness was not purchased of respondent,
but was obtained from a clerk in re-
spondent's employ, and this was the basis
of the motion to quash. The language of
the statute is as follows: ut shall be un-
lawful for any person, directly or indi-
rectly, himself or by his clerk, agent or
employe, to manufacture, sell, or keep
for sale, give away or furnish any vim
Gus, malt, brewed, fermented, spiritu-
Gus or intoxicating liquors" in counties
where the local option law is in force,
and in denying the motion the court
held that the employer would be liable.
under the law, for unlawful sales made
by his employe. The case was continu-
ed over the term.
In the cases of the people VS.. b.
ID. Hicks and against William II. Owen,
both OF Lawrence, and both charged
with having violated the local option
law, the pleas of not guilty heretofore
entered were changed TO guilty. Hicks
was fined $110 and So 80 costs or 20 days,
and Owen was given 800 and $3.50
costs or go days. Both parties paid up.
In the case of the people VS. Fred
Meabons, wherein the respondent, q
Bangor druggist, at the last term of
court, was convicted of having violated
the local option law, a motion for a
new trial was argued by counsel
and denied by the court. The respond
| 81 ,.Ia 60
and was fined $50 and S44. As costs, or
go days in Jail. Fine and costs paid.
In the pending case against George
Cross for violation of the local option
law, the respondent withdrew his plea
of not guilty and pleaded guilty.
The people VS. Matthew Murphy; vio-
lation of the local option law. Respon-
dent arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
This case is charged as a second offense,
the respondent, Lawton druggist,
having heretofore been convicted of q
violation of the law.
tayette Hill VS.. Anna I. Lawton ct
al; foreclosure. Decree and order of
sale.
IL. Amner Den Bleyker VS.. Caroline
A. Campbell ct al; foreclosure. Decree
and order of sale.
| The people VS.. Mortimer II. Strong;
violation of local option law-2d case;
respondent sentenced, on his plaa of
guilty, to pay fine of S75 and $40 80
costs or so days in Jail. Fine and costs
paid. The two cases that were pend
ing against Mr. Strong cost him 1896 go
in fines and costs.
The people VS.. ID. II. Keasey; assault
and battery; case appealed from South
Haven. After celebrating for six hours,
the jury returned verdict of not
guilty.
The people VS.. Charles Crippen. The
respondent in this case was charged
with keeping blind tiger in the Cross
building in South Haven, the same
place In which George Cross had twice
pleaded guilty to the same charge. The
trial of this case began yesterday morn
ing and lasted until the close of the
testimony at three o'clock in the after
noon, when respondent changed his
plea to guilty. He has not yet been
sentenced.
The people VS.. M. A. Engle; violation
of local option law. This case was
tried at the last term of court and re-
suited in disagreement of the jury.
J The respondent is Hartford druggist.
On trial,