The Bottineau courant. (Bottineau, Bottineau County, N.D.) 1895-1929, 1904-01-29
in a verdict Of not guilty.

III d VefulCC Oi uOL gully - fs;
The court so instructed the jury
holding that where only one witnessl
swore to the purchase of liquor anda
there were not circumstances to cora
roborate the testimony there was inn
sufficient evidence to warrant conyictS
ion as against the defendant $ statement
that he did not sell. The jury broughk
in verdict of not guilty and the des
fendant was remanded back to custodN
OF the sheriff to await still furthea;
investigations. The court also il,ss
structed the states attorney to have
the matter brought before the grand
jury as it was evident that the crimes
of perjury had been committed. Shorta
ly after this the grand jury returned
three more indictments. These were
against Gallagher, Turner and McCara
vel. and were simply changes to coIas
form to the ruling of the court anA
were ma 1e to read that these defend4
ants sold liquor to parties mentioneN
land other persons. - the latter clansE
being inserted to make evidence Of TIN
other transactions than those expressly
charged admissible and competent eviss
dence. These defendants were arraings'
ed and given until Wednesday morn&
ing to plead. At. this point the ciyt
calendar was taken up and the case 9
Frank A. Mcdonald VS.. Will Free
man was called. This case was on
appeal from justice court by the defenSs
dant The action was started by Mcs
Donald to recover $500 which hG
claimed the defendant had collected for
the publication of final proof notices
in the Golden Sheaf snd had failed
to turn over. Tne contention of the
defense was that all money that had
been received had been credited t4
Med ,nald' s account with the Renville
Mercantile company by his consentS
The pla n t i # was a b sen and
the only witness called was the defent
dant himself who presented the facts IN
so clear and concise way as to leave
no doubt as to the justice of his case.S
The court on motion Of the defendant s.
attorney instructed the jury to bring
in verdict for the defendant: This
was done and the court took recess
until Tuesday morning at $50, when
Gallagher, Turner and McCarvel were,
brought into court and all three plead
not guilty. The Doering and Odell
cases were continued over term. The
states attorney then moved that the
case of the state VS.. W. NJ. Gallagher,
on the second indictment by the grand
jury, be called and the motion was
received favorably and jury secured:
The state called as it's first witness.
Duncan Mcintyre, who swore that he
bought bottle from defendant and
paid him $500 for it. He testified
that defendant gave him the bottle
before he paid for it.
Peter Levi was sworn and testified
that he bought a bottle from the de-
fendant that looked and tasted like
whiskey. He said that he bought it
in the lean-to addition to Powers barn
and was positive that it was from
defendant that he got it. He said
that he was not intoxicated at the time
when he bought it. The state rested
and the defence moved a dismissal.
which motion was over ruled. The
defence then called the defendant and
he swore that Mcintyre gave. him 81
to get bottle of whiskey and that he
got it from Charles Nash and gave it
to Mcintyre in the barn. He said
that he sold none to Levi at any time.
He further said that he was pot sure
whether he got the money before or