Daily Kennebec journal., 1908-12-28
[REScR|P7.'
Law Court Decision in
Lewiston Liquor Case.
Exceptions 0VerruIed in MUS.
dnce Case Of Abramson,
Point Hinged On the Legality Of
A Transportation Company.

o"@ 'oaluiu udy III the AndrOScO5Sin
county case Of State VS.. Abramson, IN
"llch lquor nuisance is charged, over
utilis exceptions to the admission of
evidence. The full text of the rescript
is as follows:
Androscoggin County-State vs. Abram-
son. Rescripe, King. j.
Prosecution by Indictment for maintain
ing q nuisance
ire State alleged that the respondent.
on Feb. l, 1908, and on divers other days
between that date and the finding Of the
indictment, maintained liquor nuisance
IN Lewiston. at the office of the Langley
Transportation Company. The trial re-
suited in a verdict of guilty, and the case
is before the law court on exceptions to
the admission of evidence
1t was the contention of the State that
the Langley Transportation Company,
although apparently acting as an express
company. was not doing a bona fide ex-
press business. but was in fact a cover
under which the respondent had intoxi-
eating liquors, put up in small individual
packages. convenient for sale, each bear
ing some name as q pretended con-
signee, many of them being fictitious.
office in Lewiston where they were kept
for sale and sold in violation of law, and
distributed to customers in the name of
this alleged express company. The re-
spondent had charge and control of this
business carried on at Lewiston.
lon March 13. 1903. a seizure of large
quantity of Intoxicating liquors was made
at the office of the company. At that
time and place the officer making the
seizure took into his possession, in the
presence of the respondent. a number
of drivers sheets, so called. The excep-
tions do not show fully the contents of
these sheets, but apparently they We're
similar to those used by express COM
pan:es, containing at least a list of ship
ments. the names of the consignees. and
spaces for the dates and receipts of de-
livery. At the same time the officer found
outside the office, under the wagon used
by the company, an envelope showing a
shipment of Intoxicating liquors through
this company from Reuben Ring & Co.
of Boston, addressed 10 d. Cushing, Lew
ston Maine, as consignee. The admis
sion in evidence of these drivers sheets
and this envelope, against the objection
that there was not evidence to connect
them with respondent. is the ground of
the first exception. We think they were
properly admitted as having some ten
dencv to show the character and extent
of the business carried on under the name
of this company Of which the respondent
was admittedly in control.
2-EXception was taken to the admission
of the testimony of Officer Howard that
on the following day, March "A. 1905 he
found in a car at the Grand Trunk sta
ton in Lewiston 595 bottles and six kegs
of beer marked in care of this company.
This testimony was not admitted TO show
q violation of law at any other place
than that alleged, but as throwing some
light on tile States contention that the
business carried on under the name of
this company was not that usually and
customarly carried or by express COM
panies For this purpose the testimony
was admissible.
3-There was no error in permitting the
officer to testify that he had been in
this office great many times 'Det"een
the first day of February and the 2oth'
or the date of the finding of this indlct-
ment" and saw there no other mer-
chandise than intoxicating liquors.
4-Objection was made to the admission
of drivers sheets, taken by the officer at
the time of the seizure, bearing date be-
fore Feb l. 1865 for the reason as stated
that anything which occurred IN inns
place before the first day of FEBRUARY
the date of the nuisance is admlssible-
This evidence was expressly admitted as
eviGential in showing the more OF con-
ducting the business at the time ana
placc in issue 1t is q well settled RUE
of evidence that if n fact tends To Silo"
the mode of conducting business, the
prior or subsequent existence OF SUCH
fact is evidential to show its existence AT
the time in issue. upon the general eXpe-
rience that such fact involves an lnten-
tion and attitude more or less cont1n-
mons and permanent. In setting iitiii'
of time for the range or such evidence
the discretion of the trial court should
CONTROL, We see no reversible error IN
the admission of this evidence.
Nor is there any merit in the objection
TO the officers testimony that the drivers
shoots already admitted did not contain
the signatures of consignees. for such
fact If IT existed, was apparent from an
inspection of the sheets.
5-Respondent can take nothing by ms
obiection to the question asked of the
officer if he knew any person IN Lewis
ton hy the name of l.. Murray. fresu"i-
ably that name was on ore of the sneetS
as n consignee. The exceptions. however
do not show whether the question was
admitted or excluded.
6+The State was permitted to introduce
a number of orders for Intoxicating IL
o,ors, and receipts. found and taken pS
the officer at the time of the seizure
objection was made to the introduction
Of such of the orders as antedated fep.
/ 1905. Such as were introduced We're
admitted only as tending to show 'he
mode of conducting the business at me
time alleged in the indictment ana loi
tbis nurpose were admissible as stated
,,rder exception above.
lone Tony Nicholas testified that IN
the month of March, 1908. he purchaseo
gallon of whiskey at this office for s2'@'
The defence thereupon introduced tesu-
monv tending to show that there was no
sale to Tony. but only the delivery o1
nackare to him. Tony was then permit
ted to testify as to another previous pur-
chase claimed to have been maze pv
r1r n O.