Daily Kennebec journal., 1908-12-28
REscRIpT.
(Continued from Page Seven.)

| livery of an express package to him, by
| showing that previous to that time he
had bought liquor of the company at its
| solicitation and hence, with such an OK.
pc, ,icnce in supplying his wants, would
be unlikely to have liquor come by eX-
press Upon this ground for admission
the exact date of his first purchase would
| be immaterial, provided only that it was
| before March. But evidence of the sale
Of intoxicating liquors at this office nm
der the disguise of this alleged express
business, made before the time of the al
legged nuisance. may, we think. be adj
mitted rs having some tendency To SHOW
that the same mode of conducting buSi-
ness there continued to the time in is
sne, provided it is within n reasonable
range of time, within the discretion of
the presiding justice.
8-The testimony of Howard as to when
Allen drove for the company was admit
ted only upon the question as to the time
of Tony's alleged purchase of the drivers
and was unobiectionable.
9-The exceptions do not show that the
respondent was preiudiced by the testi-
mony relating to the conversation be
tween Tony Nicholas and Officer Beau
lieu as to returning to Nicholas his gal
lon of whiskey, which the officer had
taken for use in court. The matter teS-
titled to was imnaterial Neither is any
prejudice shown by reason of the testi-
mony of Howard that Nicholas said in
the lower court that he paid $50 for his
gallon of whiskey. Nicholas had already
testified before the jury to the same fact.
10-Lastly, it appears from the excep-
tions that the States attorney in open
court demanded of the respondents attor-
ney a certain drivers sheet. which de-
mand was refused on the ground that
the sheet demanded did not exist. There
upon the State was permitted to intro
duce the testimony of a witness that he
had scene, that morning in the posses
sion of the defence. the sheet called for,
and was then permitted to give his men,
DRY as to its contents. We perceive no
reversible error in the admission Of this
testimony. Two propositions We're put
forth by the State:
%. That the business carried on at the
office constituted a nuisance
(2,. And that the respondent main
tanned that nuisance.
If the sheet existed, it was admissible
as tending to show the character of the
business carried on. No reason for the
objection was stated at the trial. but the
respondent in argument here places the
chief ground for his exception on the
theory that if an accused person has in
his possession evidence tending to sup
port the States contention, such evidence
can in no way be procured. and the
knowledge of others of it's existence and
nature must be suppressed so long as the
Principle, judicial authority, and praCti-
cal common sense forbid any such inter
pretation of the doctrine that an accused
person shall not be required to furnish
evidence against himself. True, such evil
dence cannot be obtained by Il testimo
NAL process. but that does not close tho
eyes and ears of others. or prevent tneil
disclosure of what they have seen anc
heard If otherwise an accused persor
might keep in his possession the weapon
with which his crime was committed an6
no evidence as to it could be received
although Others had knowledge of its OK
istence and evidential character.
It is the opinion of the court after :
careful consideration of all of tho cAccp
tions that it is not shown that the re'
spondent was prejudiced by the admS
sion of any of the evidence objected to.
Exceptions overruled