The Somerset reporter., 1902-03-27

IL - fARB HtFiA NUN tldL IiDFiEiJU.
the law expressly says hat apothe-
cares using liquors only fyI com
pounding medicines are not liable TO
pay that tax, 50 that, if On other
grounds | had thought the evidence
sufficient to warrant submitting the
Cast 10 the jury, the mere fact TIA
the respondent WAS druggist Would
have made no difference, because lie
has 40 right to sell Iiquor any more
than anybody else. There is only
one agency IN this tate through
which liquor can lawfully be hold by
anybody and that Is tie town or
city agency, otherwise Than that.
traffic Ia Il in every form Is ALSO
lutely prohibited by law But the
difficulty n this case is that this is
an Indictment for a nuisance, keep
ing and maintaining a nuisance.
The statute defines, as the legisla-
ture has right TO, what shall con-
stitute nuisance, but whether such
nuisance existed OF not is a fact
for the jury to say. The statute
says that all places used for the
illegal sale or illegal keeping Of in
toxlcating liquors, that is with intent
that they shall be unlawfully sold,
are common nuisances.
Whenever a place is indicted or a
man is indicted for keeping a place,
however general the description IN
the indictment may be, the evidence
is to be directed to some particular
place. The county attorney would
not be allowed to rove all over town;
he must direct his evidence to par
ticular place and show that that IS
nuisance; that one place. He must
show that the respondent is keeping
it and maintaining it, and when he
shows that the respondent is main
tanning that particular place, then it
is open to him to show by any evil
dence how he is keeping it; whether
lawfully or unlawfully, whether as
nuisance or not. And after it had
been proved that man was keeping
some particular place, towards
which the evidence was directed, if
it appeared that he had paid a spe
cial revenue tax as a liquor dealer
for that place, 1t would be very
strong testimony bearing upon the
kind of a business which he was car
rying on in that place, To show the
character of the business II doesn't
supply the necessity of proving that
he was carrying on some business at
that particular place or some par
ticular place. Now | feel, gentle
men, that however we may guess
about it or what surmises we may
have, that there is no legitimate
proof in this case that the respon-
dent was carrying on any kind of a
business during the date between
the dates named in this indictment,
in the place for which the revenue
tax was paid, that is, was using this
place for any business during the
time between these dates This
proof is not supplied by the fact
that prior to that time he had paid
United States revenue tax The
mere fact that he paid such a tax
before these dates is not proof that
he was doing business of any kind
in particular place between those
dates, or in other words, that he was
keeping or maintaining the place be
tween those dates If it were prov
ed that he kept the place, then the
payment of such tax would be
legitimate evidence to show what
kind of place he kept. So l take
the entire responsibility of the case
gentlemen, leaving none with you,
and direct you to return a verdict
for the defendant.
The libel for divorce of Ralph q. Fos
against Carrie Y. Foss has been taken
full court upon report, for determine
ton upon questions of law. The lib,
of Frank " eeks VS. Helen A. " eeks hf
been dismissed, it appearing that tn
parties are still living together.
Abigail Young was granted a diyorC
from William Young, for desertion.
The case John A. Wood VS. william
w. Young was tried Tuesday. v
Manson, Esq, was counsel for the plaii
tiff and George n. Morse, Esq for Ii
defendant. This was an action fC
breach of warranty of a horse. tt
horse had fistula or thiselo and the ev
dence indicated that the defendant ha
knowledge of it when he sold the hors
Verdict plaintiff for $l20 30
rhe two cases Walter Bloom VS. Marsl
all Burns and Marshall Burns VS. Naltt
Bloom were tried together. The actio
Bloom VS. Burns was for assault an
battery of the defendant upon the plaiI
tiff and appeared to be well sustained /
the evidence. The action Burns
Bloom was for trespass by which ST
windows, all in the lower part of II
plaintiffs house, were broken by Il
defendant. The defendant did not der
this but claimed that he was not 7
sponsible for his acts by reason of il
jures received at the hands of the plai
tiff in his assault upon him reuderir
him obivious To all occurrences for abol
y hours. The jury rendered verdi,
of guilty in the assault and battery ca
and assessed the damage at $40 %; al.
of guilty in the trespass case and asses
ed the damage at S42 90. Walton
Walton were counsel for Burns and !
simmons. Esq for Bloom
On trial: Milford Withee VS. Somers
Traction Company Forrest Goodwj
Esq for the plaintiff, George W. Cove
Esq for defendant Company. This
an action brought to recover for person
injury received by the plaintiff viii
serving as conductor in the employ
the defendant company. He was takil
fares on a crowded open car and viii
doing SO, making his way along the ru
ming board was struck by a pole th.
supported the power wires, which To
he claims was too near the track fa /
safe.
Somerset Town Meetings.
DEAD RIVER, March 2t-Moderato
VIM. o. Wyman; clerk. +. 4. sampson
L D