Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1898-04-13

vestigation, through various deputy Off
GERS in that department. That investiga-
ton was had and Afterwards reports We're
made to the Commissioner Of Internal
Revenue and he directed that these people
be assessed with the taxes as we'll as the
penalty. Then an Application was MADE
by these parties to the Commissioner az
Washington TO nave not only the tdx but
the penalty refunded. The Commissioner
heard the case and refused TO do it,,
Here is q prima facie case made out
by the officers of the government whose
duty lit was to enforce these laws, after q
careful examination not only by one spe-
cial agent Of the department. but oy
half q dozen or more. Chemical analysis
was also had, which established the fact
that this was oleOnargarine. and the fur
Their fact was established that these 10
pound tubs. containing oleomargarine,
found in the possession Of Stole Brothers,
came from Wilkins q Company, and that
Stole Brothers rad been selling 1t to
their customers Dit different places some
Of it having been traced into Ohio by the
government officials and ordered back
from OHIO to Wheeling by Stole Broth
ers.
Now. then. the presumption Of law in
this case is, that when these special
agents investigated this matter and reach
ed their conclusions in reference to it,,
and decided that the acts of these parties
We're violations OF the law, they honestly
and faithfully discharged their duties
When that presumption arose upon the
facts Of the case, it became incumbent
upon the plaintiffs in the action to over
throw that presumption and to satisfy the
minds Of the Jury that these special
agents Of the department had made a mis-
takes Upon the weight Of the evidence
in IL case. that presumption has not
been overthrown in my Judgment. On
the contrary. the investigation had before
this Jury. To my mind establishes the fact
as near as you can establish anything
where human eye did not witness the
transaction, that the parties are all gull
tE-twO OF the parties. those at w as hing
ton, and the firm Of Stolze Brothers. Of
Wheeling. guilty of intentional violation
of the law. and the other firm here-the
plaintiffs in this acti0n-0t a technical
violation Of the law. Having violated
the law technically they must respond to
whatever the law demands | do not
impute to Hubbard a PAUL any intention
in this matter Of violating the law but
| do impute to them a neglect to take
that precaution and exercise that pru-
dence in reference TO it that as careful
and prudent men they should have exer-
cised. In every respect Of this case as
/ look d it, and considering the evidence,
I should unquestionaby. if this jury
should find a verdict for the plaintiffs in
this action, set aside the verdict and
grant "A. new trial
with these views I think it my duty
to suggest tn counsel, as it was a great
hardship upon these people. for i mere
technical violation of the lawtIfa Tay the
amount they did, that the government
should return the fine and retain the tax
/ think under all the circumstances of
this caSe-it being = mere technical vio-
lation Of the law-that that H. the proper
course to pursue in regard to it,.
After the "oleo" cases were disposed
of arguments were made on a demurrer
in the case of Ella NJ Hendricks vs.
United States. Attorney James Butts
appeared for the plaintiff The action
involves the right and title to piece OF
property said to be of very little value
in the town Of Harper's Ferry. 1t has
been pending in Court for some time.