Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-09-10

I 4
breaking, entering and larceny.
state IS. Edgar Ward. breaking, en-
tering and larceny. The respondent
pleaded nolo, and was placed on pro-
batien. II
State VS.. Joseph j. Begin, breaking.
rtering and larceny. The reading of \
the indictment was waived and plea
Of not guilty entered
State VS. i. +. Bellows, alias Ed
bellows. for adultery The reading Of
tie Indictment was waived and Il plea
# not guilty entered.
state vs.. Peter Fortier. for common
nuisance. Reading of the Indictment
waived and a plea of not guilty en-
tered.
state VS.. Esteban Higuera common
nuisance. Reading of the Indictment
waived and a plea of not guilty en-
tered.
state KS. Louis Salem, common nuis-
ance. Reading of the Indictment waiv
ed and a plea of not guilty entered.
State KS. +. s. Griffin, common nuis- |
ance. Reading of the indictment waiv-
cd. and a plea of nolo entered. Thel
RESPONDENT was sentenced to pay al
fine al 500 and costs of 50 or servei
ronr months in Jail. Paid
state VS.. Joseph Ferland, cemmonl
nuisance.
state VS.. O. d. Butler, common NUS
anee. Reading of the indictment waiv-
ed and plea of not guilty entered
State KS. Edgar Bernette, j. \. Mon
ford and A. w. Wing. for common
nuisance. The cases of Monf0rd and
Wing were placed on file, while Ber-
netta was ordered to pay a fine of
| s2eo and costs of SO, or four months
in Jail.
| At the afternoon session, two cases
were tried. Oscar Johnson was ar
raigned on charge of illegal possess
,sion of intoxicating liquors, with in
tent to sell same, to which charge
plea of not guilty was entered. Bene-
dict f. Mafer was the attorney for the
defence. while County Attorney Will
lam II. Fisher conducted the case for
the State. The case was brief, as
there were but two witnesses called,
they being, Deputy Sheriffs Weston
Lewis and Edwin c. Bullock, for the
state. The State contended that while
the two deputies lay in hiding on the
imorning of June 10, in the vicinity of
the Snow Plow, so-called, at Tosus,
they saw Oscar johnson, the respond
ent passing a pint of whiskey to an
old soldier, the purpose of which, the
State claimed, was for sale.
! 1t grew out of the testimony of
both skeriffs that they had started
from this city in a team, about ,
o'clock in the morning, of the day in
Toe ~ he, a.
of the HalIowell road. Deputy Sheriff
Bullock testified that he concealed
himself on one side of the road in the
bushes near the shanty where Johnson
is said to have kepet liquors at the
corner of the Thomaston road and the
Spring road, so-called and that Depu-
ty Sheriff Lewis was on the opposite
side. The two deputies waited until
6 o'clock before seeing anyone Then,
according to their testimony, Johnson
put in an appearance, and they saw
him go back and forth several times
between the corner the Ed Jenness
farm. He was seen, as previously
stated, to hand.a pint bottle of Wits
key te a certain old soldier.
At this point, Deputy Sheriff Bullock,
according to his own testimony arose
from the place in which he lay in
hiding and called out to johnson to
halt, at the same time making for the
respondent. Johnson and the soldier
10 whom he had previously passed the
liquor, paid no attention to the depu
ties requests, but kept on going.
Johnson was soon apprehended by
Deputy Bullock, in one of the out
buildings, but the pint bottle of liquor
! which Mr.. Bullock expected to find
in their possession was missing.
The Sheriffs made q careful survey
of the grounds in that vicinity and
and Deputy Bullock picked up
IA bottle that contained about three
eighths of an inch in the bottom Of
what ne called whiskey, and what he
thought was the same bottle that John
son had thrown down as soon as he
caught sight of the deputies. The bot
tie was produced in court as evidence.
Attorney Maher for the defence put
both the deputies under a rigid cross
examination contending that the Dept
ties were not prepared to state that
the bottle was the one thrown down by
johnson, and that if Johnson had JIM
tended to sell same he would not be
likely to throw it down. The attorney
for the defence also contended, that
the Indictment found against Johnson
read that it was one pint bottle of
whiskey that Johnson was seen pass
ing to the old soldier and that as the
deputies were not able to prove that
the bottle that they produced in court
was the one that Johnson had in his
possession and that they were also UNI
able to prove that it was whiskey III
the bottle, as alleged in the indict-
ment returned.
The case was given to the jury. at