Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1924-04-16

and William J. Cole, who stated that
they had gone to the home OF Cote
on Hillside avenue In Watervtiie ana
that they had entered 1t and found
los large bottles of beer testing
about percent alcohol.
Jenness Acquitted
A verdict of not guilty was re-
turned in the case of Peter Jenness
of Augusta, charged with single
sale, and Henry Fiset charged with
illegal possession of intoxicating
LIQUOR changed his plea of not guilty
to a plea of nolo contendre and was
sentenced to pay p fine OF SOU and
costs of $50 and to serve six months
In Jail with an additional six months
il he failed to pay. He was placed
upon probation upon payment or nne
and costs.
Robert H. Jack. q Federal PROFIT
hition agent, was the first witness for
the State in the Jenness case. He
testified that he had done some pro-
hibition work about Augusta and
that he had sworn out the warrant
against Mr.. Jenness upon informa-
ton furnished him by George M. En-
right. who had purchased q bottle OF
LIQUOR from Mr.. Jenness. He had
not seen the respondent until after
that time.
Enright, who was an inmate at
the soldiers home, stated that he
had bought a pint Of alcohol from
Jenness about Il o'clock in the fore
noon on March 6. 1t had cost him
four dollars. - Jenness had given 1t
to him in front of the house in To-
gus which Jenness was then occupy
ing and he had procured it from
behind another house nearby. He
placed the date because he had pro-
cured his discharge from the home
on that date and was going to leave
this vicinity.
He then went down the road to-
| ward the car station and met O man
| named Sweeney whom he knew, at
the home of a Capt. Moody. He
and Sweeney had gone out behind a
barn attached to the store which is
by the waiting room on the Thomas
ton road near the home, and had
drunk from the bottle, Sweeney then
putting it in his pocket. They had
taken the car to Augusta and were
arrested shortly after arriving here.
He stated that he could think all
right but that the liquor had blinded
him SO that he could not tell where
he was. He was put in the Jail and
stayed there that night. In the
morning he had been questioned
upon three different occasions about
where he got the stuff, and then
had told his inquisitors that he
would tell on man who had triec
to poison him with bad liquor and
had told them where he got 1t. He
was given 60 days and the sentence
was then suspended upon payment
of a fine of So but he has since been
in the county Jail. where he was
held as material witness.
Sweeney was the first man to tes-
tify for the defense. He told of the
events leading up to their arrest and
then stated that he did not tell where
the liquor was found.
A Mr.. Pratt, who is a farmer in
that vicinity testified that he had
passed the Jenness house on O morn
| ing shortly before the alleged sale
| and that he had seen Enright out
| in front of the house swearing at
Mr.. Jenness. He said that he knew
it was before the time of the alleged
sale as he had later. seen an an
nouncement in the paper that En-
right and Sweeney had been SEN
| fenced to Jail.
Peter Jenness was then called. He
lSSllllcu 10 luS IdCC LQaC since leaN-
| ing the service after tile war he has
been in poor health and has re-
Gently moved back to Togus at the
advice of his physician. He said
that he had not sold Enright any
liquor. He said that before the al
legged sale Enright had come to his
place and asked him to sell him
some liquor and that upon being
! told that they were not in the game,
Enright had told him that it was the
! first time that he had been unable
to buy liquor from a Jenness and
he had then ragged about and sworn
at Mr.. Jenness. Mr.. Pratt had pass
ed the house at the time. He stated
that he had no idea of any complaint
| until deputies and Federal officers
had come to the place and searched
1t with no result. He said that he
had not seen Enright on the day in
/ question.
| c. E. Jenness. a brother of the
respondent testified that about two
years ago Enright had been at the
Jenness house ard had made a dis
turbance and that the respondents
father had been forced to eject him.
Enright called in rebuttal by the
State said that he had not been there
before and SO could not have been
thrown out.
Court was adjourned until 10
o'clock this morning.