The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1916-03-24
JURY FINDS ROBERTS
NOT GUILTY OF
BOOTLEGG|NG
JURY WHICH TRIED CASE RE-
FUSE TO PLACE ANY CONFI-
DENCE IN TESTIMONY OF
GUMSHOERS.
Prosecuting Attorney Grifhths Moves
That Case Against Hall be Dismiss
ed-People Generally Expected this
Result after Hearing Evidence in the
Case-Wells Attends Court.

The jury found A. L. Roberts of
Payette not guilty in the district court
Monday. Mr.. Roberts was charged
with the illegal sale of Intoxicating
liquors.. Tuesday morning Prosecut-
ing Attorney H. A. Griffiths moved
that the charge against John Hall Of
the same city and accused of the same
offence be dismissed. Messrs. Rob-
erts and Hall were represented by
Attorney J. H. Norris of Payette.
The prosecution depended upon
the evidence of H. E. Bradley and
wife to secure the conviction. Brad
lev and wife are gumshoers and the
jury refused to accept their conflicting
evidence as grounds for conviction.
Bradley and wife were brought TO
Caldwell from Montpelier to testify
in this case. Their testimony through
out confictcd with the testimony they
offered at the preliminary hearing in
these cases.
The case against A. L. Roberts,
proprietor of pool hall at Payette
started Monday. The original venire
of "a jurors was exhausted and spe-
cial venire of FIVE talesmen was called
in order to fill out the jury. Those on
the jury were Fred Hultz, A. H. AL
bertson, B. Dix. John F. Mcclure, Jo-
seph Swartz, Jay R. Lonkey, ]. B.
Durham, L. T. Eaton, Carl Eisinmen-
ger, 0. c. Robson, Charles G. Baker,
and James Church.
| As the trial began it became evident
| that the prosecutions case rested al
most entirely on the evidence given
by H. E. Bradley and his wife. under
| cfn m hau hxy a
Payette city authorities to secure evil
dence of bootlegging operations. Tes-
timony brought out the fact that the
sleuths were to obtain approximately
| $50 for each case they were able to
for such work accomplished has been
presented to the Payette council and
amounts to something over $4,000
Purchase Booze.
The Bradleys testified that they
conducted restaurant in Payette.
Roberts was patron of their estab-
lishment On October q, they claim
ed, Roberts, in response TO request
made to him through a third party, ID.
L. Dean, brought into their restaurant
and delivered to Mr.. Bradley a pint
of whisky In return they testified
| TO having paiQ ROBERTS Sl.
| Visitors Present.
| There were present during the trial
of the case many persons from Pay
cite. Superintendent Wells of the An.
ti-Saloon league was also an interest
ed spectator. The verdict of the jury
meets with the greatest public approx
al. Expressions of approval were
heard on all Sides Tuesday. No one
outside of the prosecution thought
that the unsubstantiated testimony of
Bradley and wife would procure con-
viction. A great many people were
keenly disappointed that the prosecu-
ton had not stronger case.
Some criticism was INDUCED in that
Bradley and wife should have been
brought here at an expense of $l87.O C
TO testify in these cases when it was
known that there was no substantial
ing evidence. 1t is stated that the
mileage for Bradley and wife was no,
allowed.