Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-01-28
,ession and stataf7,nuty hes had .rown

the respondent for Is years. Witness
testified that he bought half-pint
of rum at the saloon of the respondent
on Water street Tor which he paid 25
cents Witness on croSS-eXamination
testified that he bought the liquor of
William Houlehan. The time was July
%. 1909, and he remembered the day
because he had just finished haying.
Harry E. Merrill of West Gardiner
testified that he bought a half-pint of
whiskey at the saloon of Peter A.
Houlehan in Gardiner about the mid
ole of May Witness was blowing on
Iron Mine hill, the horse threw shoe
and he came TO Gardiner. Witness on
cross-examination testified that he
frequently bought whiskey in Ran
dolph. Witness did not remember
whether he drank the liquor or not.
He bought it of Peter Houlehan.
Judge James NJ. Larrabee of the
Gardiner municipal court read the fol-
lowing records of convictions from the
docket of the Gardiner municipal court
against the respondent in search and
seizure processes for illegal Keeping in
his saloon On Water street.
May 25, 1907-State VS.. Peter a.
Houlehan. Frank Z. Andrews COM
plainant. Search and seizure. Pleads
guilty, 300 fine and $11.60 costs. The
warrant was read showing that the
seizure in the case covered 236 bottles
of lager beer.
June 5, 190s-State VS.. Peter A.
HOulehan. d. c. Jewell, complainant.
Search and seizure Pleads guilty.
Sentence, 500 fine and $6.01 costs or
GO days in Jail Paid s1O6.01. The war
rant in this case gave return of 1e
bottles of lager beer.
July II, 1909--State vs. Peter A.
Houlehan, search and seizure, Frank
f. Andrews, complainant. Plea not
guilty. Continued to July g. Found
guilty. Sentence, $100 fine and costs,
$7.SS Appeals and furnishes securities
in the sum of 5000 to the September
term of the superior court. Sept. 6.
1909 mol pressed as to Jail sentence on
payment Of fine and costs. The return
on the warrant showed the finding Of
two pint bottles and a half-pint bot
tie. each containing a small amount
of liquor. The entire testimony of
Judge Larrabee was objected to by
Attorney Heselton but the court ruled
it admissible. This completed the evil
dence on the part of the State and
Attorney Heselton for the defence
without putting on any witnesses be-
gan his argument. He contended that
the two separate indictments could not
be maintained for liquor nuisance
against the respondent upon different
portions of the same premises. County
now on trial was simply and purely
nuisance indictment against the saloon
| of Peter A. Houlehan. The court ruled
that this action could be maintained
against the saloon if the jury was sat
isfied that the respondent kept liquors
there for Illegal sale. The case was
given to the jury at $40 P. M.
The jury in the Houlehan liquor in
dictment case at 4.30 o'clock returned a
verdict If guilty.
The case of State VS.. Peter A. Houle-
han of Farmingdale, an indictment for
single sale to Frank Goodne of Gar
liner was next taken up and was
heard before the same jury which sat
in the preceding nuisance case. Frank
w. Goodwin testified that he bought
a half-pint of rum in the respondents
place at Gardiner.
Attorney Heselton raised a question
as to the validity of the indictment on
the ground that the indictment stated
that the mans name was Frank
Goodine' and the man stated that his
name was Frank w. Goodwin" The
witness testified that he was known
by the name of Frank W. Goodwin"
and by no other name
The jury was directed by the court
to direct a verdict of not guilty which
was done. Another single sale indict
ment against Houlehan was then taken
up.
Harry E. Merrill of West Gardiner
testified that on May Is, 1909, he pur-
chased a half-pint of whiskey of the
respondent, paying 40 cents for it. On
cross examination by Attorney Hesel-
ton the witness testified that he did
not remember of drinking the liquor
which ne purchased of the respondent.
The respondent, Peter A. Houlehan
of Farmingdale, took the stand in his
own behalf He testified that he for
merly kept a saloon in Gardiner and
had known Harry e. Merrill for Is
wears Witness denied having sold any
liquor to Merrill either about the mid
die of May last year or at any other
time. He volunteered the information
that he had never done any business
with the man as he considered him
fool. Defendant testified that Merrill
met him last Thursday about $50 P.
NJ on the Gardiner and Randolph
bridge and told him that he did not
wish TO hurt him and voluntarily offer
I'd to mix his testimony in court or go
away or do anything that might aid
the respondent
Clerk of Courts Charles w. Jones
was sworn and read from his criminal
docket several records of conviction OF
the respondent in the superior court
for the sale of liquor and for liquor
nuisance.
The arguments in the case were
completed at :; o'clock ard court adj
iourned until go A. M. today, at
which time the jury will be charged in
the fourth and last of the Houlehan
cases.
The next case to be tried will be that
of State vs.. Yeaton, which it is under
stood will De the last case for trial on