Bridgeton pioneer., 1900-10-18
CUMBERLAND COURTS
Speedy Ending of the October
Term.
SENTENCES OF PRISONERS.
Saving the County the Ex-
pense of Trial.
SENTENCES OF PRISONERS.
Thursday Morning.

will wind up Court this week, and
jurors, Court officials, reporters and
spectators will be given their liberty.
just who will regret the ending is
hard to determine. for there is
scarcely sufficient excitement to keep
one awake.
Not really important Indictment
is to be tried, for there are no serious
crimes to be accounted for and those
indicted for the most serious offenses
have pleaded guilty.
All yesterday afternoon we wrestled
with an illegal sale of rum case.
along with another matter that did
not cause any explosion: of fire.
works.
When we first entered the Court
room after quick dinner, we were
still on the Caleb Bishop case. Caleb
was being tried for the illegal sale of
liquor, and the evidence was in.
John &. Mitchell representing Mr.
Bishop spoke to the jury impressive
ly. He reviewed the evidence as he
perceived it's Importance and showed
that Bishop was merely a janitor of
the club and that he could not have
committed crime merely for hand
: ing to the members of the club the
beer that belonged to them. He
held that Mr.. Bishop did not receive
anything from the box in which the
money was dropped, and therefore
was not guilty of the charge alleged
in the Indictment. All that Bishop
got from the club, he urged, was the
wage due him and certainly that
was not against the law
Prosecutor Fithian, of course, ha d
a different notion of the case. He
saw through the somewhat compli-
Gated system of getting beer and
paying for it through the agency of
the little box with slot in it, the
keeping of speakeasy. Beer was
brought to the club room by the bot
tier and it was distributed to the
members by the bottle, and paid for
by the bottle. That was in evidence.
The bother got his money for the
liquors furnished, and it was fair to
judge that the money came from the
little box with a slot in it Rent
was paid, the ianitor was paid, and
the uncontradicted evidence led one
to believe that it came from the
profits accruing for the sale of the
beer.
Judge Trenchard presented to the
jury the law in the case, and the
jurors retired for verdict.
The remainder of the afternoon we
spent in Investigating the indict-
ment against Paul Shoemaker,
charged with larceny as bailee. When
the evidence was presented the pic
ture was this:
Shoemaker owned COW, and it was
sold by him to Morris Silverman, a
Salem county butcher. The sale was
made really to Julius Silyerman, the
brother of the complainant in the
case. $50 was the money involved
and there was no dispute but that
the money passed.
Silverman did not go over after the
COW for some days after the purchase
was made, and when he did 90 after
her, he found that Mr.. Shoemaker
had again sold the COW. He demand
ed the animal but, of course he
didn't get it. He couldn't for Mr..
Shoemaker didn't have the COW.
The other side of the tale, all
stories have two sides, was like this.
Mr. Shoemaker owned the COW. That
agreed with the States case. He
sold it to Silverman for $40. That
also was agreed by the other side.
But right here there were differences
of opinion.
Mr.. Shoemaker claimed that when
the sale was made it was expressly
stipulated that Silverman should
call for the COW the following Mon
day. If the COW was not called for,
Mr.. Shoemaker reserved the right to
sell the COW to the first purchaser
who came along. Monday came all
right, but Silverman didn't. Tues
day and other days came, but no Sill
verman. Then another purchaser
came along and the COW went.
When Silverman finally appeared
and demanded his COW the situation
was explained, and Mr.. Shoemaker
rendered the 500 back. Silverman
refused to receive the money and de-