The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1910-06-07
past wear o. withln period Of two years.


Mr.. Kramer for the defence, said he
would show that Polivinick had license
to do business in Camden; that under the
law he solicited business in all parts OF
Burlington county; that cases of beer
were sent to Roebling in the proper way
and that he had right to sell it there.
Constable McCnne testified that after
the arrest of the men on May z. the lat
ter went to the car under advice of coun-
sci, got the liquor and in the presence OF
Mogel, Morris Polivinick and the two col
ored men SO deliveries were made. Nc
Cune made a note of them for Justice
Peacock.
| Max Polivinick, whose son is not asso-
ciated with him in the business, said he
had license to do business in Camden.
Witness had received orders from this
county, and by railroad had shipped the
goods to Mogel, his agent. He had sent
his son to Burlington to arrange with Hor-
ton for the delivery of the beer.
Morris Polivinick swore that he had
never seen Sharp and had never delivered
beer to his house.
When Mogel took the stand he said that
Mrs. Sharp had ordered the beer and she
requested him to sign the order. At the
time Sharp said he bought case of beer
right from the wagon, Mogel then had an
order from Mrs. Sharp for that same beer.
The defence then rested.
Prosecutor Atkinson said to the jury
that having no license to sell In this coun-
ty the defendants were guilty, and all
others connected with the sales were prin-
cipals and equally guilty.
In his address Mr.. Kramer said: ''This
matter involves the right of business
man to do business. The old liquor ghost
crops up, perhaps causing you to see a
speak-essy proprietor stalking around at
all hours of the night. AS long as the
law says that liquor can be sold, Polivi-
nick has just as much right to square
deal, If he tries to comply with the law,
as the man dealing in shoes or sugar.
When did the people become the owners
of this beer2 We shipped It by the Penn
sylvania railroad as an agent, had Horton
come and get it and from his wagon 1t was
delivered. We didn't try to deceive any,
body. It was done In broad daylight and
we only ask for justice. By the orders
received the sale took place in Camden,
where we had right to do business, and
where title to the property was transferred
to the railroad company. The liquor was
delivered to the persons who bought it
according to the form of the orders"
Prosecutor Atkinson could not agree
that the liquor business was analogous to
the shoe or any other business. The
liquor laws ought to be rightly enforced,
and the man who pays license protected
In his territory. In the sales act the law
says that If there is anything to do after
the sale is made the sale is illegal.
Judge Horner, in his charge, told the
jury to consider the cases separately and
ascertain If there was proof of habitual
sales on the part of both defendants. If
the goods were delivered to a common
carrier in Camden, and Pclivinick had no
further interest In the matter, the liquor
being shipped direct to the purchaser, the
defendants were not guilty.
The court imposed fine of 5000 on
Max Polivinick and suspended sentence
on the other indictment. The son, who
has been convicted in this court before,
was fined $3.50, and sentence suspended on
the second charge. The defendants were
told that If they were ever convicted in
this county again for violation of the ex-
else laws, they would be sentenced to
state prison.
Samuel Mogel was then placed on trial
for his connection with the case, being
held equally guilty as a principal. The
testimony of the first trial was largely a
duplicate In this case.
Miss Mary Samson, the stenographer,
created the only sensation of the day She
was sworn and testified as to some things
said by Mogel.
Ibid he look like a foreigner not ac-
quainted with our laws ?" she was asked.
mot as far as his business was concern
ed, she promptly answered.
Mr. Kramer accused the stenographer of
what he thought was delicate attempt
at witticism, and in an instant the court
Judge Horner, however, denied this i'm
parchment. He said the answer was per-
fectly proper and upheld Miss Samson.
The state then rested.
Mr.. Kramer moved that verdict of ac-
quittal be ordered on the ground that the
defendant had not been connected with
any crime. The motion being denied,
counsel suddenly and Unexpectedly closed
his case without offering any testimony
or even addressing the jury In behalf of
bis client.
This proceeding was surprise to all
present and its legality was questioned,
but 1t was stated that a similar move had
been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Prosecutor Atkinson had gotten we'll
into his argument before the jury when
his attention was called by the court to
the fact that he had not proved that Mo-
gel did not have license to sell liquor.
After that fact had been made clear by
John W. Harris the argument was re-
sumed.
The jury found Mogel guilty on both
indictments.
Abner G. Mitchell, of Trenton, who
was indicted for the same offence at
| the same place, retracted his former plea
of not guilty and entered plea of guilty.
A nOlle pros was entered IN Lne case OF
the four drivers-Arthur Young, Stephen
Steinetz, Charles E. Phillips and Harry
Hall. The case of Mitchell was continued
until June 16, as was also that of the Po-
livinicks pending an application for a
writ of error.
William Lowell, of Burlington, pleaded
guilty to two charges of beating his wife.
Hattie Jackson, colored, indicted for
assault with intent to kill George Green,
of Bordentown, with a cleaver. was per-
mitted to plead guilty to simple assault.
Jury cases will be taken up again on
Monday, June 20.
~AII4r~m CO