Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-03-21

eral denial on each and every allega-
ton be entered by the secretary and it
was so ordered.
The opening address was made by
George F. Emery He read sections
of the statutes relating to the enforce
ment of the prohibitory law, saying
that inasmuch as the charges were
based on this law he read it to refresh
the matter in the minds of the mem
bcrs.
He spoke of the meeting, between
Judge Chapman and County Attorney
Patten. in which the latter suggested
that it would add dignity of the court
to arraign all the prisoners in the dock
and told him that he should use his
every endcaVor to properly prosecute
violators of the prohibitory law.
Mr.. Emery then touched upon the
King case where a barrel Of liquor was
found in barn. but King was not con-
victed. He stated that the evidence
in the case would be presented from
memory at this hearing
The attorney also revised the case
against Charles Morse of Bangor.
where the defence was that the liouor
was for his personal use. The prose-
cution claims that the evidence in that
case was also sufficient to convict
He reviewed other happenings in the
court and then told Of County Attorney
Patterns declaration to Judge Chairman
that he would never again prosecute
case in his court
Mr.. Emery next spoke of Mr. Prin-
gle. his work ana his trip to Il saloon
alleged to be run by Il Mr.. Newman
He then told of Mr.. Prinsle'S pr0secu-
ton of the case against Newman in
which the respondent was discharged
The first case in which a man was
not arraiGned in the court at all, to be
spoken Of by Mr.. Emery, was that
against Driscoll for single sale.
H!c said that he should introduce ev-
idencc to show that respondents were
not arraignCd in the dock. but that 9TH
er offenders were, thus showing dis
elimination.
Mr.. Emery. next took up the liquor
advertisements ana said that he should
Introduce evidence to show that seven
warrants were sworn out against the
publishers by Mr.. PrinSlc and were is
sued, but never served. This was claim
ed to be Wilful negligence and NAL
teasance in office. Further warrants
were sworn and. after action by the
Governor and Council, the case taken
directly to the suprem" judicial court
The opening address also contained a
review OF the rest of the charges and
the evidence on which they are based
A rather peculiar phase of the cigar
charge was the statement that one
MI Il in, tl,n h.,,. T.,
belled the Judges Choice"
IN closing he said that the prescott
ton took the position that it was not
incumbent upon it to prove any viola
ion of the statute for if he had 50
done, Impeachment proceedings would
have been brought but they did pro-
pose to prove that he did neglect his
duties
County Attorney Potter. T 3. Towlc.
y. II. Harding. Willis Y. Patch. Fred
erick II. Appleton and the Rev. IT, L.
Prn@lc were sworn as witnesses. Aaron
f. Davis and X. i. Burns were called
but did not respond.
The first witness to take the stand
was Mr.. PrinGic. The direct examina-
ton was in charge Of Judge CIcavcs.
\ list Of the names of those paying
the internal revenue tax was submit
ted as evidence and handed to Judge
Newell
The witness was asked if he made
complaint to Judge Chapman on ac-
count OF the violations of the law
against the advertisements for the sale
of Intoxicating liquors. He replied that
he did, first on April %, 1868.
The refusal to grant the warrant DC
CURED on June 1G, 1908. He was asked
to state the circumstances.
Mr. Prlngle said that he did not got
q direct refusal. but that he was met
with arguments that he should take ii
before the grand jury; that there was
doubt as to whom the suit should be
brought against and on account of the
expense of the warrants to the county.
The requests for warrants were press
cd. he said, and then refused.
The witness then said that he wrote
to the Governor and Council and re-
c"iVcd a reply. finally July 6. 1903. Mr.
PrinSlc Was shown the warrants, on"
by ono and asked if he signed them all
II" replied that he did.
II" was asked with whom he left tic
warrants and replied that they We're
left either with the clerk or judge Of
the court. Witness said in reply to q
question that he did not leave any in
StruCtionS that any of the warrants be
not served.
Judge Clcavcs said that the warrants
bore no evidence of having ever been
in the hands of any officer and would
offer them as evidence. Other warrants
were then presented. These latter We're
sworn Sept. Il, 1905. Witness testified
that he left those with either the judge
or the clerk.
In reply to another question as to
whether he left any request that the
warrants be not served Immediately.
he replied that on the contrary there
was an understanding with Judge Chap
man that the warrants be served at
once.
He testified that he went to Bangor
three times to So" iC any Snryic" hal
been made. He said that he heard Judge
Chapman make arrangements tn fix tho
matter up without the Formally of the
respondent appearing, by means of the
telephone.
Questioned as to Just what part of
conversation Mr.. Pringie heard dis