Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1899-10-05

sary for the state TO Irove the sales.
The jury received the case at 2:il and |
were out until 1880 when they returned |
verdict of not guilty
Tho jury were FCaLR Blakcloy of Col |
chester Earl Bartlett of Tndcrhil G. H. |
Fay of Richmond, stephen Noonan of St |
George, Frank Palmer and c. l.. Van Niet
of Charlotte, w. r. Ferguson of Willistun, !
II. u. F'ulle~ of Milton E \. Peek and
L. s Hebb of Buslinrtor w. c. Liver
more of Hincsburgh and Henry McNall of
Wostford.
TWO PLEAS OF GUILTY.
Attorney Cushman asked leave to with
draw the plea of not guilty made by Ad-
ncy r. Gosselin and. enter a plea of no n
contcndere Tho court refused to allow the
plea. After a short recess the former plea
was withdrawn and plea of guilty pf
being a common seller entered. He was
fined 500 with the alternative Sentenceand
placed in the custody of the sheriff The
fine was paid.
w II. Zottman appeared in court and
entered a plea of guilty to the charge of
being a common seller for which he was
fined 500 with the observation-disclosures. He
was ordered TO stand committed until the
fine should be paid. .,
STATE VS.. F. L. TAFT.
The case of the State vs.. Fayettc /.
Taft was next called. Mr. Taft was rep
res, ntod by -. J. Foster and Seneca Has
elton \ jury was cmpancled. The Stat,
excused Charles w. Wright Of Colchester
Fl. T. Fay of Westford and the defence OH
iectcd to George d. Wright of this city,
Henry W. Jordan of Jericho and g. H.
Hayden of Jericho. George r.. Rand was
excused by the court because he owned
building in which a drug store was kept
against which a prosecution was in prog
rcsS.
I'm opening the case the State called A.
l.. Weeks, deputy collector of internal rev.
enue. Mr. Weeks was asked to testify as
to form No II. used i'm the issuing of l:q-
uor licenses and refused to answer until
he could consult with the district attcr-
ncy. on further questioning Mr. Weeks
stated emphatically that he should refuse
to answer any question relating to the Of
flee which he held until ne was ordered
to do SO by the United States district at
torney. lie would checrfully answer any
question when so directed by the district
attorney. He understood that he should
not give any Information regarding the
business of the Office which he held
Mr.. Weeks was questioned by the court
and Attorney Hascton read to the court
some recent decisions regarding the mat
ter by the attorncy-general. Mr. Brown
argued that he was entitled to the inform
atioN which he asked.
Judge Rowcll stated that the case dif-
fcred from the case in which Mr.. Weeks
refused to testify at Montpelier and said
he would take the deputy collectors in
5uuc,loNs ana the cases cltod ana conSl-
der them
'h ME- weeks h"lnG asked n general
PuoTuon hN the states attorney, tho res
pondont's counsel objected to the evidence
as incompetent and the objection was
ovoruled and an exception allowed. Mir.
Nc'hs repeated MS refusal to answer
w ''unS'.
MI Weeks was lEStructed to wire the
c".l''tor 10 S'nd the district attorney to
~, ~ ''H ne Juds" remarked that Mr.
N''NS ""' ri idltilui olll'cr ana mercy
",Si''u 10 90 ms dutN'
ne H'ate theh called RoV. q. w. Nor
row state superintendent of the Anti
S%'"'n l|ed5"c' re teSuiled that he visit
o' portsmouth, \. H., and asked for a
'or'li'ed cory OF the record of special
taxes ana was refused. He then secured
an examined copy of the record. He was
handed bunch of papers which he said
was the copy made by him of the records.
inc copy was offered as evidence.
Under questions of Attorney Haselton,
'he witness said that he saw at Ports
mouth tho son of the collector The book
he saw was shown in a public room and
ne saw no posted list of special taxpayers
me room where the records were kept
was private room. There was nothing
on thc cover of the book. There was no
IoS''o llSt ol special taxpayers in the
room where the copy was made. He did
not take all of the names from the record
Th" counsel for the respondent object
ed 10 the admission of the copy and At
torney Haselton argued the matter to
some length and raised question of the
constltutiOnalitY of the law under which
the cases were being tried. The obiectio
Is being considered by Judge Rowell who
viii rule upon II this morning Exceptions
may possibly take the case TO the I-uite1
states courts.
Mr.. Hasalion objected to the admttance
of the copy of the records as evidence.
First-On the ground that it was incosu-
petent in that it controverted the policy
OF the United states government as de-
clared in statutes and " rules and recu-
lations of the treasury department. which
have the force of law.
Sccond-On the ground that the COPY
offered in evidence was incomplete and that
the relevancy Of the omissions could not
be determined by the evidence of the wit
ness who made the examination and that
the whole record must he procured i'm CO.
, der that thu court could determine from
inspection of it what was and was not
relevant.
, Third-On the ground that the statute
, making proof of the payment of "A spe-
cial liquor tax evidence of the substan-
, tive offence of being a common seller was
iuValid under the constitution Of Vermont
and the l4th amendment of the Conctitu-