The Elk Mountain pilot., 1923-07-26

meeting of the Board OF course, this is denied /,
three defendants. 1t was denied by Mr. Kochevar le
denied by Mr. Miller. But they all denied that 49,. was
was said the meeting about the banquet at all.
Doctor Sullivan examination absouteIy a.. yet
all of evidence of these several witnesses who t
that nothing took place in that meeting with rersy
that banquet. Consequently Doctor Sullivan has % ; 70
the evidence which has convinced this court that 4
resolution truthfuy speaks the action the Roard nat
tbe 5tb day of July Now let's see whether tbero On
thing bears McWilliams out regards the convey
ton in connection with the of liquor Mr. Wbair
testes that the first he heard of the use of b;
was at the La Veta Hotel the 10Th of June at tbo
quet, at which time he says McWlams said to him "T
don't think have got enough whiskey", and Mr. Wb
len said he thought they did have enough Now atbon
the other defendants deny anything said ab
wbiskev at the banquet yet Mr. Whalen admits that Nv
did furnish five gallons, and both Mr. Sullivan and M
Knowles admit that Mr.. Whalen told them that he had
five gallons whiskey which he would furnish for b
banquet Now then, how would they possess that nfo
nation if there had not been talk between them abnt
of whiskey at this BANQUET 1t is just as un
thinkabe anything be- The jury could not have
anything else than that these defendants cor
roborated Mr. McWiams to the five gallons whis.
kew And then it is only step from that to say "Wbv
if he the truth that the balance Of his TESTIMONY
true and the testimony of the defendants be
relied upon" Also Kuykendall who testified that
he delivered five gallons of whiskey right here at thu
Court House. and he knew what it was for He wanted to
conceal his and his identity with the transac.
ton and although he put in charge for liquor against
the County, he used other words in lieu of whsey
Pete Reiss furnished two gallons and half and that
was delivered here at the Court House, and all paid
say frankly, that when furnished a week ago
with copy of the evidence didn't recall that this ey.
dence in the record had forgotten it. l thought
at that time everything denied but it isn't The
jury in my opinion could not have arrived any other
conclusion Therefore, believing that the jury arrived
the right verdict and that these defendants could not
say and could make the defense that they honestly
believed they had the right to the money of this
county buy whskey the court is forced the con-
cuson that this verdict must stand, and that the mo-
on this ground of the nsuffciency of the evidence
is good and that part of the motion is good
is overrued
To which ruling, the defendants each of them
except.
That thereupon neither of the defendants their
having anything to why sentence should
now be pronounced the Court announced Judgment
follows, towit
Court 1t is the judgment of the court that each of
the defendants pay fine of Two Hundred Dollars and
that the defendants Sullivan and Knowles be and they
Office; and they the defendants pay
the costs the case be apportoned equally among
them.
To which Judgment of the court the defendants and
each of them except.
Defendants given thirty days in which to prepare
and Bill of Exceptions and to apply for super
and execution stayed during that time pending
application for supersedeas.