The Caucasian. (Shreveport, La.) 1900-192?, 1910-02-10
SCOFIELD CONVICTED

He Is Tried on One Count-The Evi-
dence Overwhelming He Pleaded
Guilty to Two. and Three Counts Are
Held in Suspense.
Fl. B.. Scofeld, a member of the City
Council and owner of the Majestic
Pharmacy, has been convicted of selling
liquor in violation of law. With him
Nathan Punch" Newman is guilty of
the same offense. They were tried
Jointly, against each were six counts.
When the trial was begun Scoheld, to
judge by his manner and demeanor, was
confident of an acquittal He had relied
on the prescriptions of physicians to
lead him from his tribulation. He sat
beside his attorney, Hon. w. A. Mabry,
with composure. He smoked his cigar
leisurely and seemingly was not in the
least worried over the end 1t may be
recalled that he had asserted with de-
gree of positiveness that he had violated
no law and so direct and emphatic were
these assertions that some of his friends
had been led to believe that he was be-
ing prosecuted instead of prosecuted
Beside Attorney Mabry on his left sat
Punch" Newman, an employe of Sco-
field, who watched the proceedings
keenlS
The first witnesses for the State were
]. 7. Hosea and Ed Humphries of Mis-
sissippi, who are connected with the
Pinson Detective Agency. These two
witnesses testified how and when they
had obtained the whiskey sold to them
at the Majestic Pharmacy by employees
in that establishment While the evil
dence by these detectives was clear, and
in ordinary cases would be sufficient,
there were expressed doubts by those
who sympathized with Scofeld. There
are some men who declare they would
not convict on the testimony of an in
former or detective who would turn up
a man for selling whiskey, but these
same critics would not question the We
racity of the same detectives if they
were testifying in cases Of murder or
other crimes. The consistency of some
men is not only remarkable, but past un-
dershnding.
Why should there be entertained such
feeling of prejudice against men of good
repute when testifying against deliber-
ate violators of the law in selling liquor
There may be expressed some consider
zion of leniency for the man who as a
SAIGON keeper or bartender, takes the
risk of conviction by selling whiskey or
intoxicants in violation of law, but what
can be said of the individual who relies
on prescriptions so-calfed to shield him
from the effects and the operation of the
law which is disregarded with ifnpunity !?
If, after the two detectives had testi-
fed there was any doubt as to Scofeld's
guilt, it was removed when Mr.. Tom
kies, an unwilling witness, testified.
1t should be observed that when Sco-
field had been called to testify he dis
credited some parts of the statement by
Mr.. Tomkies, who was recalled. What
he said was more than sufficient He
not only met Scofeld's allegations, but
overwhelmed him completely. On tax
ing the stand Mr.. Tomkies said he was
unwilling to testify, but since Mr.. SEQ
field had attempted to discredit him he
would explain his position. He said he
had bought forty bottles of whiskey at
the Sco6eld or Majestic drug store from
every man in the store. Sometimes he
went back and filled the bottle himself
and he paid the money whenever he got
the whiskey He had never gotten out
two prescriptions for whiskey on the
drug store.
This statement was paralyzer. II
meaft conviction, and conviction was
the result as it should have been. 1t
was then that Mr.. Mabry and his client
Mr.. Scoheld, and District Attorney Eos
ter retired from the court room for con-
sultation. On their return Scoheld ant
Newman pleaded guilty to two counts
and the other three charges against them
will be continued.
In these convictions there is not only
the vindication of the law, but it is made
clear and positive that intoxicants car
not be sold under the shield of pre-.
scription. If it were possible to sci
whiskey by the pint or quart on the pre-.
scription of physician, then drug store:
so-called would be opened at every cor.
ner and the law would be derided into
contempt.
One of the interesting features of tn,
trial was in the development of pre-
scriptions from which liquor may b
sold. As developed prescriptions by tel
ephone were filled readily.
In his comments on such unprofess
ionar methods Judge Bell was pointer