Daily Kennebec journal., 1913-04-14
MAINE LEGISLATURE.
Continued from Page Seven)

q. Have YOU any question about it!
A. No question whatever except that l
don't remember | don't want to testify
to what | don't remember.
c. | don't want to leave it indefinite,
and ! do not want to take up the time.
we will start that there were 12 in Sep
tenber. Now will YOU tell the conven-
ton. when you Indicted 63 in January. 81
In April, why you only had II indict-
ments in September? A. Because that
is the ony,-the lists of witnesses given
to me by the police department and the
deputy shcriffs and sheriffs whose duty
il Is to enforce the liquor law contained
only those names and no one else ap
peared before the grand jury to put in
evidence against them. as / remember.
9. Wasn't this the term at which DR..
Leach appeared before you and wanted
to bring evidence? A. And ! told him to
come and he didn't come
q. He testified you told him you would
let him know when to come before the
grand jury. a. told him to come
around after | had finished with the
witnesses. and | would give him
chance.
Q. Did you expect him to keep track
of the grand jury? \. l didn't expect to
keep track of him.
@. When people come and tell you
they have evidence. you don't take the
trouble to notify them? \. Yes do,
I summon them ordinarily if they have
any evidence. if they tell me any evil
dence.
q. Well he told you lie had evidence
IA.
mons him? \. ] asked him for the evil
dence. He didn't give it to me speeifi-
cally.
O. He would have to go before the
grand jury and present it a. And |
told him to be there
q. You didn't notify him when you
Were ready? y. No, as l recollect it,
we held the grand jury at that time. l
think 1t was Friday or Saturday, We
held 1t two three hours there I think
.. Well now. you have stated here
that you indicted all of the men whose
names appear in the bulletin. or all of
the cases, | don't know as YOU said men.
\. ] said that on the September docket
there were the names of all or nearly all
the men who were contained in the bull
Ietin.
@. That was not quite the way YOU
put it-You said you had indicted all of
them. y. ] had no question about that
q. Let us take it that way Well now
even supposing YOU had indicted them at
a previous term YOU would indict them
again at the September term couldn't
YOU. If they were still in tile business :?
a. | could IL | had the evidence.
n
gathered between the April term aud the
September term and wanted to present it
TO your grand jury. 1t was your duty to
present IL. wasn't it? \. 1t was II he
was there.
q. Well. in the evidence which was
presented in that bulletin there were
more than Il parties. were there not,
there? \. ! think there were Nearly
every name that was i'm the bulletin was
on the docket.
Q. On the bulletin which he handed
YOU. or presented at the time there
were more than u places or names on il
were there not? A. Undoubtedly, as
reeollect II.
q. And something like Go altogether
were there not? \. | should say that
would be the number. Judging from he
number that was on the docket in here.
about CO.
q. ] suppose this is true Mr. Hines
that when you presented evidence to the
grand jury at any term of court YOU
generally had sufficient evidence to con-
Nict a man il he was tried, calculated
YOU had?A. ! had sufncient evidence
at least to satisfy the grand jury.
TO the grand jury unless you thought you
would convict anybody. would you? A.
No, that is just why didn't present
several of them
Q. In all the cases where you Indicted
men in your Judgment you had sufficient
evidence to convict them? A. That is
my opinion
q. Well now at that September term.
II you will turn to yeur docket A.
have it.
@. find that you mol pressed one
liquor nuisance against Thomas Nc
Namara on payment of sll0 | think A.
] think that is very likely.
@. And two cases against him. LIQUOR
nuisances without receiving any money
ut all? a. Not receiving any money be-
cause he had paid $500 on the mittimuses.
@. But on those cases? A. That is
true.
q. Well now it is true, | assume from
what you have already testified that if
you had seen fit to have continued your
prosecution against Mr.. Mcnamara in
those two other nuisances you could
have convicted him? A. / think So
FL q. And he was still in the liquor busi-
ness? a. | don't know
q. Do you have any question about 1t
from the testimony here that he was
continuing In the business? A. | didn't
hear any evidence that he was in the
business tsthat particular time don't
know. Mr.. Wilson
y. You want the convention to under
stand that you don't know whether
Thomas McNamara's place was run
ming on Main street all last year? A.
My opinion is from the evidence that
heard before grand jury. it was. but
personally | don't know. Mr. Wilson.
.. You have never known him to show
any signs of getting out of business, have
YOU? A. He has been on every docket
he was four times on one docket here in
evidence