Semi-weekly herald. [volume] (Durango, Colo.) 1907-1917, 1916-03-23
MARTIN VERGE CASE
GONE TO THE JURY

he had participated with Sorenson
in the violation of the law. lie
claimed to the Jury that il was tho
place of Witness Davis as an officer
of the law to warn people and pre-
vent them from the violation of the
law rather than to participate in the
violation of the law and encourage
others to violate the law as Davis had
done. He insisted that insofar as this
violation of the law was concerned
there would have been none had II
not been for the action of the deputy
sheriff. He explained that when Wit
nesses Esch and Sorenson had par-
ticipated with Davis in drinking the
contents of the bottle that Davis took
the bottle after he had done his
devilish work as a participant in the
violation of law by encouraging others
to violate the law. He insisted that
Davis and Sorenson were both guilty
of boot logging.
He claimed that Sorenson did not
even think enough of this country
to take out his naturalization papers
altho he had been IA resident of this
country for some six or eight wears.
On the other hand that in 1901
shortly after his arrival in this coun-
try, Martin VERGE had taken out his
naturalization papers and was an
American citizen, that he had a wife
and three children to support.
He explained that the defendant
did not deny the charge of having the
liquor on hand which was left on his
hands at the time the prohibition law
went into effect. That he had kepr
it for two reasons, one for his own
personal use, the other that he might
have the liquor on hand when the
prohibitory law should be repealed
rather than to dispose of it at a loss.
He said that defendant testified
that he never had the bottle that was
on exhibition in the court room and
that the attorneys may have brought
it from their own private residence.
He called attention to the three at
torneys who had their minds fixed
upon prosecuting this innocent de-
PENDANT. He said it was alright for
them to smile while it was very diff
ferent matter for his defendant
whose liberties were at stake. He
insisted that the defendant denied
the story of having in any manner
sold any liquor to Sam Sorenson.
Attorney Pulliam went on to show
that the court had instructed the jury
that the evidence of the defendant
could be considered the same by the
jury as the evidence of any other
witness, and that John Kellenberger,
Cyrus Graden, A. F.. Hood, Charles
Fleck, Matt Harrington and ]. J.
German had all testified defendant
was a good law abiding citizen so
far as they knew him and that they
knew him well.
District Attorney Lane then in a
very pleasing and fair minded way
explained that it was not sufficient to
govern the minds of the Jurors that
the defendant was a man of good
character, that many a man had been
law abiding or was considered law
abiding and later found to be Grim
inal in fact.
The district attorney explained to
the jurors that the prohibitory law
now in force in Colorado is a very
reasonable law and that it in no way
worked a hardship on any one who
wanted to use liquor, and that the law
is made for the purpose of prohib-
iting the sale or gift of liquor and
that it is chiefly to apply to public
He explained that the trouble In