The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-11-23
JURY DEL|btRATES
ON JONES' FATE
instructions to Body Given by
Judge Fox This Morn
ing.
Whitewater MAN SCORED.
PROSECUTOR SAYS MAN MADE
HIS HOME A DRAM SHOP WHEN
1T WAS UNNECESSARY TO
STooP TO SUCH METHODS.

attorneys in the case of the State vs..
DR.. Arthur Jones of Whitewater,
charged with violating the liquor laws
under the blind tiger statute, the
jury undertook the determination of
its merits. The argument for the state
was presented by the prosecuting at
torney and that for the defendant by
Byram Robbins, his counsel.
In his statemen to the jury, the
prosecuting attorney said he grants
the blind tiger law is somewhat
drastic legislation and it may seem
rather harsh to send a man TO jail be-
sides imposing fine. but the law ex-
lists in such terms only. ut was not
necessary for Jones to stooD to such
disreputable Methods asserted the
prosecutor. He made of his home
made dram shop, a saloon. If he had
had this liquor for legitimate purpos-
es. why did he keep 1t concealed about
his premises under the counter and
between the flour sacks, as testified to
by the officers? Why did he keep his
kegs in the barn, upstairs or in the Gel
lar and why not in places easier of ac-
cess? 2" The prosecutor went into the
evidence as presented quite extensively
and made powerful plea for the jury
to return a verdict of conviction.
Jones' attorney made the plea that
the liquor confiscated by the police Of
this city when they raided Jones'
store at Whitewater was owned by him
legitimately, and was for private con-
sumption or use as practicing physi-
clan. Jones was spoken of as man
who had been imposed upon and whom
was being prosecuted rather than pros
ecuted
The jury retired to it's rooms imme-
diately upon receipt of the instructions
from the court
Courts instructions.
The court, after reading the indict-
ment and the statute upon which it
was based, and after charging the
of reasonable doubt and the credibn
ity of witnesses, instructed the jury
as follows:
The indictment in this case is based
upon statute approved by the general
assembly of this state on the 18th day
of February, 1907, and which is known
as the Blind Tiger law. The terms
of this statute are comprehensive and
are intended to prohibit the selling,
bartering or giving away of intoxicat-
ing liquors as a beverage by any per-
son without first procuring a license
SO to do. The provisions of this sta
tute are stringent and the penalties
provided severe. but the statute is val
i'd and constitutional and the courts
will enforce it according to its terms.
In the first place, the statute prohibits
any person not having a license so
to do, from selling or bartering any in
toxicating liquors in a less quantity
than five gallons at a time at any
time or in any place or from selling or
bartering any such liquors in greater
quantities than five gallons at a time
to be drank on the premises controll-
ed by the person selling the same.
The penalty for violation of these
provisions is fine of not less than
fifty nor more than one hundred dol
lars for the first offense; in the Sec
ond place the statute forbids any per,
son from keeping, running or operat-
ing a place where intoxicating liqu-
ors are sold in violation of the laws
of this state or from having in his
possession Intoxicating liquors for
such purpose, the penalty being, in
such cases, fine of not less than
fifty dollars nor more than five hun
dred dollars, to which must be added
Imprisonment in the county Jail not
less than thirty days nor more than
six months AS has been said, the in
dictment Is In two counts. The first
count charges the defendant with
keeping. running and operating a
place where intoxicating liquors are
sold in violation of law. A single un-
lawful sale of intoxicating liquors
would not render the defendant guilty
under this count in the absence of
other proof. Such a case, however.
would come within the provisions of
the statute first above named. which
is not involved in this case. A single
sale would not be keeping, running
and operating place where intoxi-
CdtiuS IquotS were uuidW lully SOlu, /,
the words keep, run and operate a
place implies duration to some extent.
The second count in the indictment
charges the defendant with having in
his possession Intoxicating liquors for
the purpose of bartering, selling and
giving them away in violation of the
laws of this state. Under this count
in the Indictment il is NOT uecesSary
for the state to prove that there were
any actual bartering, selling or giving
away any OF such liquors by the defen-
dant, but it must be proved that such
liquors were in his possession for that
purpose; but this fact, however, may
Ia iufoExod from, r,rcx-,-d x,s.a.xx.,r4az