Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-12-16

as a witness before the grand jury
his board was paid by Mr.. Howard
The State afterward called Mr.. How
ard to contradict Bridges upon that
point, and he was allowed to do so
against the objection of the defendant
While a party may not impeach as OF
bad repute for veracity a witness call
ed by him, he can show by other wit
nesses that the witness was mistaken
or even lied as to one or more mat
ters The evidence of Howard was
admissible.
The State called a member of the
grand jury as witness to testify to
statements made by the defendant as
a witness before the grand jury. OBJ
lection was made upon the ground that
for the witness so to testify would
violate his oath to keep secret the
States counsel, his fellows and his
The testimony of a witnC SIS, however,
is no part of the counsel Of the State
or any grand juror. and that ground
of objection is not tenable. That was
the sole ground taken at the trial.
and to that ground the defendant is
confined, whatever other grounds are
urged in argument
Against the objection of the de-
PENDANT, evidence was admitted of the
finding in various places in Auburn
and Lewiston (other than the place
claimed to be a nuiSance) of intOxicat-
ing liquors and vessels used to con-
tain such liquors in the possession of
the Twin City Express Co. or marked
or tagged with the name of; fiat COM
pany. The claim of the State was that
the company, though nominally mere
transportation company, was also dur
ing the time named in the Indictment
engaged in selling and keeping intoxi-
eating liquors for sale. If this were
true, it was a circumstance proper to
be considered in connection with other
circumstances upon the question
whether it's Lewiston Office was used
for those purposes. The evidence OBJ
jected to had some tendency to support
that claim of the State. The finding
in various places of numerous barrels
of flour and of empty flour. barrels
marked or tagged with the name of a
particular person or company, tends
is a dealer in flour
IneFe was IOuIlQ IN the Lewiston OF
flee of the express COMPANY sealed
envelope directed to Erred Reed, Bos-
ton, Mass" This envelope was OPEN
ed, and, with it's contents, against the
objection of the defendant was adj
mitted in evidence. 1t is not stated,
however, what the papers were, and
hence we cannot say that their ad-
mission was prejudicial to the defend
ant.
There We're numerous exceptions tC
paragraphs in the charge Of the pre-
| siding justice. There were also mum
erous requests for instructions which
were given in modified form. None
of these exceptions are much urged ir
argument, but we have nevertheless
considered them all, and find no errol
prejudicial to the defendant.
| 1t was urged in argument that there
was not sufficient evidence to hold thu
defendant responsible for the unlaw.
full acts of the Twin City Express Co
1t does not appear, however, that the
court was asked to direct a verdict
hence that question is not presented
The case seems to have been vigor
ously prosecuted and defended. Mum.
erous questions were raised before thu
'pf5iresfding justice requiring instant rul.
ings but 1T is not made to appear tina