Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1899-04-10
COUNTY COURT.

week of the jury cases that we're set
for trial. Monday afternoon the trial
of the State cases began. The first
called was the State VS.. Lillian Rosco
alias Russell. This was for furnishing
Intoxicating liquors without author
ity. The charge on the part of the
State was that Miss Rosco had, at
some time last December, sold one
Galland Skinner a pint of whiskey.
The States attorney put Mr.. Skinner
on the stand as the first witness. His
evidence was to the effect that on the
9th of December last he had purchased
pint of whiskey of the respondent,
giving in payment half dollar and a
peck of apples. On cross examina-
ton Mr.. Skinner said that the day be-
fore he had been to Hyde Park and
had procured quart of alcohol and
had been drinking considerably be-
fore going to Rosco's, that, in fact, at
the time he bought the liquor in ques-
ton, he was quite drunk. On re-ex-
animation he was asked if the liquor
found on him at the time of his arrest
was not whiskey. He replied that it
was, but said in answer to a question
from the respondents counsel that he
had had three quarts of red whiskey
sent him from Massachusetts about
two weeks before. The State then
rested it's case and the respondent be-
gan her defense by first using as a
witness one Geo. Lee, who testified
that he visited quite frequently at
Rosco's: that he was there on one oc
casion in December when Skinner
was there; said he watched Mr.. Skin
ner all the time he was there but did
not see him get any liquor. The re-
spondent then took the stand in her
own behalf and testified to the effect
that q / one time during the month of
December Mr.. Skinner was at her ia
theirs house; said her father was not
at home at the time but that George
Lee was there; said she did not fur
nish Mr.. Skinner with any intoXicat-
ing liquor but that he was very drunk.
The State in rebuttal produced two
witnesses who testified that they
were at Rosco's at the time Mr.. Skin
ner was there, but did not see George
Lee. The case was then argued and
went to the jury, the court charging
the jury that they must be satisfied
beyond a reasonable doubt of the re-
spondent's guilt or they should re-
turn a verdict of not guilty. The
court explained to the jury that by
reasonable doubt they were to under
stand such doubt as would lead a
prudent man to hesitate when &C ting
upon the grave and more important
aifairs of life.
After considering the case for some
time the jury brought in a verdict of
not guilty.
States Attorney Graham appeared
for the State, and Aldrich of Barton
for the respondent.
Before the State continued wit b the
trial of any other of it's respondents
who had plead not guilty, several who
had plead guilty were brought before
the court for sentence as follows:
Henry Colbeth plead guilty to petty
larceny, and was sentenced to pay
fine of $40 and costs, and to stand
committed until sentence is complied
with.
Clarence Shatney plead guilty to
burglary and was sentenced to two
years in the house of correction.
Frank Sweet, Charles Sweet and
Samuel Hawkins, on joint informa-
ton, each plead guilty to burglary
aud were sentenced to two years in
the house of correction.
Sullivan E. Clough plead guilty to
breach of the peace and was sentenced
to pay a fine of SO and costs.
George Banister plead guilty to Civ
ing away intoxicating liquor. In this
case the court suspended the sentence
and delivered the respondent over to
the custody of the probation officer.
Charles Mckinney plead guilty to
being accessory after the fact and was
sentenced to one year i'll the house of
correction.
The next case in which the State
had trial was the State VS.. Mitchell
Lamere for grand larceny. The evil
donce produced by the State in this