The Republican journal., 1905-05-18

and eighty days, and by this usual method
Mr.. Edminster would have been obliged to
serve two hundred and forty days and two
hundred and ten days longer unless he had
paid the fines and costs. The aggregate
full penalty as provided by stat lte in the
would have been $3.50 and two years and
five months in Jail.
In case No. 564, returned from the Law
Court, Judgment for the State" ready for
sentence at this term, and case No. 56S, con-
tinued for sentence from last term, both
against Jesse E. Staples, the presiding Jus
tice stated that why he gave only fine,
was because that he was satisfied that for
three months and longer Mr.. Staples had
been out of the business.
At the January term of Court, 1908, Chief
Justice Wiswell, who also presided at this
term of Court, announced that after March
81, 1908, Jail sentences would be imposed
In cases No. 4S6 and $50, John A. Warren
was sentenced 500 and costs in each, and
in default of payment, to sixty days in Jail
in each case, but as the Jail sentences run
coDcurrently, that is he serves both at once,
he chose to 60 to Jail sixty days rather than
pay 1920. He may regard that he is earn
ing good wages.
Cases No. 565, $50 and 56S against W. S.
Edminster, John A. Warren and Jesse E.
Staples, respectively, were tried by jury at
the January term of court. They were
search and seizure cases and the evidence
was overwhelming and the verdict 'guilty"
in each case. Then motion to arrest
ruled it; then exceptions were taken to his
ruling; whereupon, by motion of County
Attorney Foster, the exceptions were
adjudged frivolous and intended for delay
and according to the provision of the
statute were sent to the Chief Justice that
4 81 ;r1xk NO o6
sentence at the April term instead of the
September term, as would have been the
case had they gone to the June Law Court
These cases were returned Judgment for
the State" aud ready for sentence at the
April term, and Nos $50 and SOS were
sentenced by fine only. But in case No. sos
against Mr.. W. S. Edminster, the presiding
Judge said in effect, that as Mr.. Edmnster
and Mr.. Gentner and Mr.. Fred Staples were
all in about the same relation to the law,
GALL in the business at the time,) he felt
that they should be all used as nearly alike
as possible and proposed that case No. 500,
against Mr.. Edminster should be continued
for sentence; and the County Attorney,
probably not wishing to oppose the presid-
ing Judge in his plan, acquesced to concur.
The idea involved, as explained by the
Judge, was that if given a Jail sentence
then he would have to serve it then, but if
given next September it could be served at
the same time all the others were being
served. Last January exceptions in this
case were adjudged frivolous and intended
for delay, and the case given a short cut to
readiness for sentence. Then in April,
when it was ready for sentence, it was con-
tlnued to more convenient season. If
three men were known to be guilty of theft,
or forgery, would it be suggested that the
one caught should not be punished until the
other two should be had, SO that they
could be all punished at the same time and
in the same way?
Verdict of not guilty in case No. 604 was
surprise, since there was the evidence of
two search and seizures and the testimony
of witness who had purchased liquors
there four or five times, all within the
period covered by the indictment.
There were many cases on the docket.
Some of them were there when MIR. Foster
came into office, and he was rather hard
pressed having to stand against the COM
bined force of Messrs Hartman, McLel-
Ian, Bowden and Richie, the attorneys who
Quently for the liquor men. One of the
leading attorneys expressed himself as we'll
pleased with the results, and to the effect
that Mr. Edminster fully expected to go to
Jail. A strong effort was made to prejudice
the court and jury against the evidence of
the detective who had been employed by
Sheriff Carleton. The rightfulnesS to en-
ploy detectives to ferret out crime is every
where recognized, and more detectives are
employed today than at any time in the
past; and whoever heard their employ ment
objected to except by the liquor fraternity,
when used to detect the crime of selling
liquor; and | believe the citizens of this
county will uphold the Sheriff i'll his
straightforward work of enforcing the law.
While there is such a combination to defeat
the Sheriff in enforcing the law, and such
sly methods of conducting sales, such as
carrying the complete outfit in a market
basket on the arm that can easily be run
away with, or having hide in some out of
the way place and bring only bottle or
two at one time on the premises where the
sales are made and peddlng from the
pocket, Sheriff Carleton will doubtless
avail himself of every honorable means of
enforcing the law so persistently violated.
The ''gone out of business" argument was
very much worked. Gone out of business !
Why not the thief, or highway robber, or
forger when he is caught and hard pressed
by accumulation of cases and evidence, de-
clare by himself and his counsel 81 have
gone out of business, all out for good,'' and
a few months after being ''let off, engage
in it again and pursue it with all diligence
until caught and then repeat the same old
plea of ''gone out of business
ONE INTERESTED.