Clearwater Republican. [volume] (Orofino, Idaho) 1912-1922, 1915-04-09

Idaho, in all probability, has been
watched with more interest, and had
to try cases in which the people of
the county were more interested, than
that now being held by Judge Edgar
Steele at this time in Orofino. Clear
water county is perhaps the only coun-
ty where a judicial Interpretation Of
the liquor laws have not long since
been determined. But here were
those who contended that the county
was not ''dry" because the people had
not voted it dry since Clearwater
county was cut from dry Nez Perce
four years ago. Judge Steele said
there was absolutely no question about
it. The court said Clearwater county
is "dry," and that men are now serv-
ing Jail sentences in other counties of
Idaho for violating the law under
identical conditions existing in Clear
water county. The court read the
law on various occasions showing that
it was unlawful to even give liquor
away, although it was not violation
of the law for one to ship in liquor
for personal use, and it was lawful
for number Of persons to order joint
ly, shipping in liquor for personal
use, even though the liquor be shipped
in one of the parties name. But the
court said there must be no profit for
any of the parties in the transaction.
This latter explanation was made by
the court in the case of the state VS..
French and Lester, the Elk River
draymen, who swore, and produced
evidence to the effect that consider
able of the liquor received in their
name really belonged partly to other
parties who paid for share of the
goods.
The jury cases began Monday morn
ing, and the entire week. has been de-
voted to what is generally termed
''bootlegging" cases. The legal
term under which the defendants are
tried is maintaining a common nuis-
ance.' and the law is plain and
severe.
1t is unlawful to give liquor away
1t is a violation of law to permit peo
pie to congregate on ones premises ane
drink liquor, even though given away
although to constitute common nuis
ance there must be a place main
taiDed.
The first case was that of San
Grande. This began Monday morn
ing, and jury was quickly selected
Shortly after noon the case was com
pleted, the jury agreed, and defendan
found guilty. The evidence was con
elusive. Mr.. Grande had sold booze
to which fact numerous witnesse
testified. And there was barrel o
two Of Exhibit A found by the sherii
and his deputies when they searche
Mr.. Grande's premises some mont
ago. Mr.. Grande was stuck.
In this case attorneys for Grand
tried to make the witnesses swea
they knew they were drinking beer 9
whiskey. "How do you know it wa
''whiskey," or beer" as the cas-
might be? And here is about tn
way the witnesses answered: 9
called for whiskey or beer, and | pal
for whiskey or beer, and it tasted lik
whiskey and beer, and it made n
drunk like whiskey and beer usual
Does That was the substance I
the statements mad. by the Witness
for the state, of which there wei
plenty.
John Barkus was the second to fa,
the court on bootleg charge. Ha
dozen or more swore they purchase
from him, and two or three of the
witnesses said they were only eig
teen years Of age. 1t took the ju
about ten minutes to return verdi
of guilty.
Tuesday morning the case of HON
C. French and B. H. Lester, draym
of Elk River, came up. The sta
did not claim it had evidence tn
either Of these men had sold liquo
but the railroad records were produe
to show that these men had shipp
in large quantities of beer. Defen
ants swore it was shipped in the
name but belonged jointly to hume
GUS parties, some dozen or more bel
named by the defendants. Some be
has been found at their premises
the officers, and a barrel, almost flu
was exhibited in court. The defer
ants said they never tried to conce
the fact that they kept beer for th'
private use, and thought they hac
right to do 80. The state failed
show that the defendants had 81
liquor. but did show the receipt o.
large quantity that the defendal
received and did not account for
the ground that they had shipped it
NH