Weekly journal-miner., 1916-06-14

tice McLane dismissed charges O. violating the State prohibition amend ment filed against Sidney Birch.
 Birch was named in two complaints, one against Stanley Priestly and him. self and the other charging Fred Lane and himself with violation of the amendment. In hearing both cases Justice McLane dismissed the cnarge on the grounds that neither Cooper nor Bryant, principal witnes- ses for the prosecution, had testified that they had ever purchased or been given any intoxicating drink by Birch, that the Federal liquor license issued to Birch Bros. was made out in the name of Robert Birch and that the assessment records failed to show that Sid Birch was in any way con nected with Erich Bros establish ment.
 Lane and Priestly were each bound over for trial on two counts charg ing them with disposing of an alleged intoxicant in the form of ginger ale and Larry Duff on one similar charge. All three defendants are employees of Birch Bros. Robert Birch was bound over for trial following the testimony of the two investigators" Cooper and Bryant, that they had secured whiskey from his once during the many weeks they had frequented the place in an endeavor to secure evil dence of violation of the booze amend ment. Eacn of the two Thiel agency men testified to having secured whis key from Bob Birch after many ef- forts but on none of the occasions on which they claim to have purchased the booze, they admitted, were there any witnesses present. Cooper ad- mitted to having put up pitiful story to Birch regarding the illness of Jim mic Britton in order to get whiskey for the latter. whom he had claimed to be practically dying for lack of wniskey.
 The statement made during the course of the recent hearings that the Thiel agency, having previously fail ed to secure evidence of bootlegging, had sent he and Bryant to Prescott with orders that they must make good in their investigations, was prov en to have had its effect on the men when Bryant's wife. although not em- ployed by the Thiel agency, took the stand yesterday and told of having helped her husband to the extent of becoming intoxicated, to secure evi- dencc against the place.
 Mrs. Bryant was called during the hearing of Larry Duff, from whom Bryant claimed to have secured gin ger ale, which. when analysed later, contained 3S.4S per cent alcohol. She said that between 10 and II o'clock on the night of May 22nd her hus- band mad taken her, through the al ley entrance, into one of the booths n Birch Bros cafe.
 The following was taken down while Mrs. Bryant was on the stand for the prosecution. the questions be- ing asked by Deputy County Attor- ncy Joseph Morgan:
 o. Just tell us how you went in there and what happened:
 A. Well, we went there for supper and ordered supper. We went in the back way and into the booth; my husband pushed the bell and the man came who he called Larry.
 Q. You say man by the name ot Larry came. Is this the man: (Point ing to Duff.
 A. Yes. that is the man.
 o. What was furnished there in the way of drinks;
 A. Ginger ale is what we ordered.
 o. Did you drink any of this stuff ,
 A. Yes, sir.
 o. What sort of glass did ii come
 A. It came in water glass, only they kind of come out on the side.
 Q. Small, thin glass?
 A. Yes. sir
 Q. Iced?
 4. Yes, sir
 Q. About how many glasses of this stuff were brought back there:
 4. About seven or eight. l didn't count them.
 Q. Did you drink from each oi them?
 A. I drank some. Q. Do you remember how much :
 A. 1 couldn't say. drank from every one.
 Q. Did it affect you any:
 A. By the time I got about four or five glasses. l was beginning to feel rather dizzy.
 Q. Did you sec your husband do ing anything with this liquor or talk ing the liquor from the glass. ! A. He put it into bottle.
 Mrs. Bryant then identified two bot ties offered and said that her husband had poured some of the contents oi the larger into the smaller one and later sealed inc latter.
 Cross-examination was then con ducted bv Attorney K. F. Morrison