The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1902-10-15
4 STRONG CHARGE
Delivered to the Grand Jury on
Liquor Selling.
Judge TOWnssnts Document.
No Possible Chance Of Mistaking
the Position Of the Able
Jurist on The
Subject.

A large portion of the time Of
he U,iit..d States district coni
AZ week was occupied in the trial
# case in which the defendan
vas charged ~ith Introducing and
selling liquor. The charge to the
grand jury in that case was one OF
lbs strongest ever delivered in SO
Indian rerritry cour., and was
listened TO with much interest by
all who were in the court room at
that time. 1t was a typewriter
document Of three pages. and since
the trial SO many good citizens
nave desired to read il that we rr-
produce it in loday's edition Of the
Express:
Gentlemen Of the Jnry:
The defendan' 10 this case il
charged by the Indictment with the
sale of Intoxicating liquors. The
burden Is upon the Government to
establish to your satisfaction, BY
legal and competent testimony, be-
yond a reasonable doubt, every
material allegation of the Indict-
ment. Every person is presumed o
no innocent until his guilt is es-
tablished to the satisfaction Of the
jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
You are the sole judges Of the
weight Of the testimony and the
creditbllity Of the Witnesses. The
question of fact Is one exclusiveI,
for your consideration. The law
10 this jurisdiction absolutely pro-
hibits the sale of any malt spiritu-
GUS or minuous liquors, or any iu-
loxIcating Liquors. whether medi-
Gated or not. The law il absolute
ly prohibitory and the disclosures
that have been made 10 the trial of
this case have been felonious and
outrageous. showing that some
body is violating the law in a most
scandaIous manner here 10 this
place.
II appears to me that it indicates
a wonderful failure or negligence
possibly, on the part of the Gov.
erument officials in not putting a
stop to this. 1t looks to me as
though the commissioner and the
deputy marshals had been negli-
gent in the discharge of their
duties.
The question of evidence admit
ted in this case, so far as the case
Al bar is concerned. 10 be consider
ed by you, aud must be the cir
ums'ances that are IN evidence
before you preceding the finding
Of the Indictment. As to the sur
rounding Of these vaii ms places
where the evidence shows liquor
was sold, aud other evidence and
circumstances that have been prov
20 existing prior to the finding Of
he indictment, as 10 the control
md prcprietorship, and who con-
rolled and managed the building
,r the places where these we're.
The question as TO whether this de-
'endaut was the proprietor of these
irlnking establishments where this
vhiskey and beer, and all these
hlngs were sold, is a question OF
act for you gentlemen to determ-
ne from the circumstances that
lave been proven before sou
Evidence of the defendant in
Ilaiming the ownership of the prop-
.rty that be had in the various
places, and which be had listed for
axation. Is competent also to be
considered BY you IN de erminiag
Is TO The proprietorship, control
md mauag ment Of this business.
The court would further instruct
Iou that II this defendant was the
manager and proprietor of these
'iaces, and you are satisfied that
his whiskey and beer was sold By /
lis agents. OF clerks. the court |
would instruct you that be wss in !
crested in the business and would /
10 responsible; but whether it was |