Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1898-04-15
THE BREWERY BEER.
Testimony at the Hearing la Regard to
the Beer Seized at the Freight Depot
Last Week---A Claim That Martin
Leonard owned the Beer


Last Week---A Claim That Martin
Leonard Owned the Beer.
A hearing was begun before Justice
John II. Merri6eld Friday afternoon to
determine whether the six kegs Of beer
which were seized at the Boston a Maine
fire. ght depot last week were liable to CON
tiscA'Ion under the Vermont law. Much
interest ceutered in the case because of the
legal points involved and because of the
rumors which preceded the hearing as to
the probable method Of attack and defence.
{. {. Fits and States Attorney Robb
conducted the prosecution and G.. B. Hit
and kittredge Haskins the defence. Pc
liceman Thayer testified that on Wednes-
day Afternoon. on complaint of the village
bailitis. he seized six kegs Of beer as they
were being rolled from freight car to the
freight depot. The kegs were rolled into
one Of J. A. Taylor's wagons and were
drawn away While this was going on
Fred {. Gale appeared and claimed TO hold
jurisdiction over the liquor but he made
no effort to prevent its seizure.
/. F. Brooks, station agent, testified
that the kegs were sent 10 Martin Leonard
by the Hampden Brewing company of
Ho.yoke. Mass, as was shown by the way
10 show whether consignments Of Nquor
We're constantly sent here to Martin Leon
ard. Counsel for the defence objected TO
this and the matter was put over until
Monday afternoon.
j. A. Taylor testified that so far as he
knew Martin Leonard had no business on
the island and that none of his teams had
ever done trucking for Martin Leonard.
The defence set up claim that the Hamp.
den Brewing company had telephoned the
station agent 10 return the beer to them
claiming the right TO stop the beer in tran
sit, but it appeared from the books of
Manager Henkel of the telephone eX.
change that message was sent from the
brewery TO the Hampden Brewing com
pany before the brewing company tele-
phoned for the return of the beer and that
both messages passed after the beer was
seized. 1t appeared from the testimony of
Edward Lavelle, an employ at the freight
depot, that similar shipments of beer and
ale had previously been received in the
name of Martin Leonard
From the evidence deduced the prose-
cution claimed that Martin Leonard had
no interest in the brewery but that the
beer was his TO be transferred at the depot
TO the real proprietors of the brewery.
Upon this theory the prosecution held
that they had right to seize the beer as
II was intended TO be transferred at the de-
pot or in this state in violation of the laws
of the state. To meet this argument the
defence put on as witness Fred c. Gale.
who testified that Martin Leonard was the
proprietor of the brewery and that he was
Leonard's agent and that therefore the
beer was in transit when it was seized.
The prosecution offered in rebuttal TO
Gales testimony the testimony which Mar
tin Leonard gave at the trial of a case in
the county court when he said that he was
in business in Johnstown, n. y, that he
had no interest whatever in the bre very
and that he had never been in the state of
New Hampshire. Manager Henkel testi-
fed that the telephone in the brewery was
in the name of o. H. Ellis. The main
question at issue seemed to be whether
Martin Leonard was proprietor of the
brewery.
Justice Newton gave his decision last
night, to the effect that the liquor is for
feited, and that it shall be DESTROYED The
claimant took an appeal.