Norwich bulletin., 1922-08-07
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Again the Jewett City Cider.


 MT. Editor: The comments of Inter ested' on the Jewett City cider case are the same that hundreds of others are giving in connection with the case. Per sons in this locality who have known positively that the defendant in this ci- der case has sold hard cider for years, and since the Volstead act went into ef feet, has done a rushing business ilie- gally are wondering why he is not taken up for jerjury of the court as he testi- fled under oath in the civil court that he had never sold cider. He also said that he had never bought any apples for the making of cider, when his advertise ment in the Norwich Bulletin has proved that he was offering his price for them. A state policeman bought cider direct from him recently, and testified to that effect and yet though he was fined for it he calmly says (for weak jury) that he never sold. And they call that evil dence that he should have the cider back.
 A few years ago, we remember when he was judge in the court, and he fined some of his neighbors for selling. He should be willing to take his own med icine. But he is we'll versed in law and will use every means available to win out The case was tried in the criminal court and he was fined on three counts. Then jury composed of fair minded CD men including a minister and two deacons and three farmer friends, paid no attention to the evidence before them but swallowed whole the plea of the at- torney, forgot entirely that they were supposed to use common sense and to the surprise of everyone, including the defendant and his attorney decided in 1,s,.. 4O prove that he had not sold illegally, in order to bring in this verdict, and they would have a pretty hard task to go into detail and convince anyone within 1 a radius of fifty miles where they could | conscientiously agree upon that fact | They should all hang their heads and 1 consider what an injustice they hav' done to the community, to the court and 1 to themselves. They now claim, in weak 1 defense from the scathing remarks O | their verdict, that there was not enough i evidence What about the 129 barrel | seized? What about the measures, thu l glasses etc., found in the cellar? Wha about the class of men who have gon' l back and forth to the Griswold farm fo years with jugs, etc? What about thu testimony in regard to reputation? Wha about the testimony of a state police man that he actually bought from tn defendant? What have they to say? Al this evidence came out in the crimina court, and he was found guilty, an fined Every intelligent person for mile around have expressed their opinion ol
 these men who were put in a place t help justice win out, but failed.
 It is a degrading case throughout, an all the more so because the law court
 are not courts of justice. It all depend
 on the lawyers plea and the dollar sig
 in connection with it. But the feders authorities have shamed the jury b
 taking charge of the case, and the de i, fendant is shamed in his vicinity whetf CT justice rules out or not. Our eye
 and ears are very good evidence afte
 all. He may win out, by law, but it impossible for him to win out trutl fully or honestly, for he wasn't in th right kind of a business to be counte in with the men who uphold themselve above debauchery. Illegal business is
 menace and men who will give verdic on behalf of 1t belong in partnershi with it, and such Is the reputation the six men who decided in favor of
 They jump from responsibility to degr;
 dation.
 , J. E. W. Lisbon. Conn, Aug 5. 1922.