Gilpin observer., 1916-03-09
ACQUITTED

men in the county court Saturday,
on charge of having sold liquor in
violation of the state law. This was
the first case of the kind tried in
Gilpin county since the prohibition
law went into force and from the
heavy expense OF this one, it is
hoped that in the future they will
be few and far between. The ex-
pense incurred in trying the Hatfield
case will amount to close to $4,000.
The action was brought at the in
stance OF the governors office and
from all appearances was for the
purpose of ding Wandering
George" in his campaign to again
secure the Republican nomination
and election. Two of the govern
or's agents or sleuths worked the
case up and made the arrests, and
as is usually the result where de-
tectives are sent out to gather evil
dence, a conviction was practically
out of the quest on. The majority
of the witnesses for tie state were
not residents of Gilpin county. They
were brought from Corona and Den
yer and seemed to be coersed into
testifying through tie influence of
the detectives Their testimony, par
ticularly as to the dates on which
they were supposed to have bought
liquor from the defendant. was so
conflicting that no fair minded jury
could have convicted the accused.
The verdict was received with gen.
eral approval by the many who
heard the case.
Bernard r. Giles was the first wit
ness called by the state Friday morn
ing. He said he was special agent
of the governor among the prohibit
tion workers On Feb. 18th, in
company with Ed Johnson (another
OF the governors agents. and Dis
trict Attorney Johrson, he went to
Baltimore and made search of the
Hatfield premises. No liquor. aside
from bottle of beer that the de-
fendant had opened for himself, was
found in the club building. nor was
any found in any of the cottages. Up
on the consent of Mr.. Hatfield, they
searched .Ir. Hatfield's residence and
there found so quart bottles of whis-
key, AZ hal,f-p'nt bottles of whiskey
and barrels of beer. After find
In u,n In
Tolland and after Wis ting one or two
places, including the pool hall con-
Quoted by F. w. Dolley, concluded
they had procured enough informa-
ton to warrant them in arresting
Hatfield. They then went back to
Baltimore, arrested Mr. Hatfield, and
had the liquor hauled to Tolland and
stored until it was sent to Central
to be introduced as evidence.
Ed. johnson was placed on the
stand and corrobora;ed the testimo-
ny of Giles.
A Mexican by the name of Apple
Jack, WHO had wo, ked en- the Toll
land section, Jess Stearns, former
foreman CT the section, and Geo. II.
Brown, an empioye of the Moffat
road, all testified that they had
bought liquor of Hatfield, but upon
cross examination by Jay Byron,
counsel for the defendant, got their
dates mixed and left strong doubt
in the minds of the jury as to wheth-
er they had bought the liquor be-
fore or after the dry law went into
effect
The testimony OF F. w. Dolley was
very weak-in fact, didn't amount to
anything. All he could tell was that
about January 18th, while riding on
a wagon with Ed Evans he observed
q man coming from the direction of
Baltimore with sack on his back
and It looked to him as though the
sack contained bottles. or course,
his vision wss not sufficiently pen
etrating to enable him to determine
II the bottles he supposed TIE sack
contained were filled with liquor.
Mr.. Evans while on the stand said
he saw the man with the sack on
his back, but was busy driving his
team and didn't take amy particular
notice OF either the man or the
sack.
Ed. Hansen and jas. Perry, who
work at the Jumbo mine near Bati-
more. were good Witnesses for the
defendant Reports had come to
them since the first Of the year