Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-03-01

brought In a verdict Of guilty against
Mike Burns, and he STOOD then and there
just like any olher condemned rumseller
with the presumption of innocence pos
sibly still in his fa~or-I have often heard
that argued. The case was taken to the
law court, and 1t was thoroughly and
well tried.
Now he went up on an indictment
charging him with a sale, a single sale.
as common seller or something like
that, and also for maintaining a liquor
nuisance. The law court in its decision.
given by the then Chief Justice Peters
decided that on one point the instruction
of the presiding justice at nisi prius was
wrong.
Michael had taken great many
chances In his life but at last he de-
cided to bet on a sure thing. He sent 10
England and bought lot of goods In
small packages and took chance on SELL
ing them in Augusta in the original pack
ages. That was 30 years ago, and no.
body. only attorneys of this State mas
any recollection of the attempt to deieat
the Maine law court law by selling In the
original packages.
The court finally decided there was a
chance to let Michael out and let him
out on the ground that the Maine pro-
hibitory law as it then stood would not
forbid the selling of goods in the Original
package.
Now. those who have been around the
courts have no hesitation in agreelhs
that in all human probability 1t was ue'
cided that Michael Burns was an oitehas'
against the laws of the State Oh Mann
nv maintaining a liquor nuisance
has nersistently and very skillfuiiy oeen
ot..n,ntinp through the long lapse OF "
years TO get the State to reimburse MN
for what, If my brother. the geh..e"''.
from Portland. is correct was oi' "
larceny on the part of some OF '''s o
c,als of Kennebec county. Why ne s"ou',
look to the state to reimburse N''""e'
Rurns for the evaporation or his i'po.
cd liouors, if they were purioined pS o'
c,als of Kennebec county IN whose
oh.roe they were, and why that are"'
ment should appeal to the comfn't'e'
claims, is past my understandings
I stand here and go on recoru a.
being against making an atlen'pt
defeat the law court of the otate -
Maine n sure thing, when uhaei Wv
rrocedure of the court, If am able 10
read 1t understa ndingly, the man may
have been founG abundantly guiiy W
the court at nisi prius ana IN my J"'e
ment was only released on what we ~
commonly term techncaiity' mp
the majority report fought TO pass
will fail of a passage. =,
Mr.. ROUNDS of Portland: MI,
Speaker, I would just like TO red'
from state V. Michael Burns: tRe'''
ing) ..o
..The undisputed facts show that Inc
liquors which the State claims " IN
fiscate, as being in the possession ~,
the respondent Burns for uiiiamt
sale, were imported by him from E.,s
land, were his property, were III
original and urbroken packages 4'.N
in the same cordition as when iihpo,
ed. that. at the date of the seizure "
had them in his possession WIN ~
intent to sell the same only III 81
original and unbroken packages
in the same condition as when mp
ed; and had established himsen III
place of business in the city OF Ausu
ia for that purpose. The respoha.n'
contended that such possession anu ~
tent to sell was rightful under the ID W
Ct the United States. The court ne'o"
ruled and decided that 1t was ireEa'
under the statutes of this State H. %
C. 81"
This is what the law court say
Reading) Held. that the decision
the supreme court of the United o'a"
in the case. Leisv V. Hardin on i"',
consideration settles the question: an
REQUIRES this court, bound on sum
questions hv the law as determineh Nv
that court. to reverse the rulings nei""
ard sustain the law according TO 'i'
ree,ondnnt's contention"
Thereenre say the supreme coufI
or this Stete the hiehest court we CAV
RI to. has reversed the decision OF tne
Ioy.er court. and 500 >" -n"T"n why
CONTINUED on PAGE 9 Column =