The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

[S55 Iu-.r.v....a uu usavlalu . There was a. little carelessness! ,shoWn in this case also with the bot-I _:t1e which they say ,was bought from , Dunn. Bradbury says he gave the bot-1 itle to Constable Rich to keep for him until he went to Toronto. Rich was ; not, called in the matter although he is `a Provincial Police Officer. Sarvis ,says`he sent the bottle over to the ianalyst, The purchase was made on |February 3rd. The analyst's certifi- s.In...:... c.....a...j BY I-`AR THE BEST "An `I Q'n- Now OPEN FOR BUSINESS AT MlCKLE- DYlV_lE_N'!"S% 0_Ll_) `S_TA_ND,_ BRADFQRD` s1`. New Coal and Wood Yard A. F.A.MALCOMSON This is stocked with - {he ehoicest quality of 1 NO. 1 HARDWOOD : HARDWOOD SLABS HARDWOOD EDGINGS : HEMLOCK EDGINGS HEMLOCK SLABS : COAL and COKE Wood furnished from our `own sawmill at Craighurst. Your patronage solicited. Satisfaction guaranteed. Prompt `delivery to any part of town, ' Phone 748. 0 NEll.L S COAL and W000 YARD F IRE-Absolu_tely Reliable Companies. LIFE--Exelsior Life: Attractive Policies, Low Rates. ACCIDENT-Tl1e Newest F eattires. PLATE GLASS--Lower Rates. . in` nu A nuuunuu v-cu pm-:1`:-nun h AI-tuna BUS % SERVICE- FTF-AS 20 lb. PAIL 9.20 9.40 10.00 10.20 10.40. 11.00 11.20` 1 1.40 12.00 These Prices Good till Saturday, Jan. 30th, 1923 C109 : T: r__ F or Quazty IX. jj 7.20 7.40 8.00 8.20 8.40 INSURANCE Uptown Tickat Office Canadian National Railways TINS 16 oz. TIIIQ IXIUI. \vCI'l Nestle : Leave` Barrie ` PURE LARD $3.99 GAR ma B-EST ALWAYS A-P'1.'iaX's1-Jiz'1:"b QUOTE RATES: TIMETABLE 12.20 12.40 1.00 1.20 1.40 2.40 43.00 3.20 3.40 4.00 4.20 4.40 5.00 Sezo 41? E051) AS 1111-: F323;: EC!-;ABL'E PURE GOLD 2 mm. QUICK PUDDINGS 25c| 53i$'YRuP 37 LE Al! than!` an III-In an-mug s73f`IX5H__1_9c ( 5 lb. PAIL TC XI cdLoBXF 111-; - 4 8.00 8.20 8.40 9.00 9.20 9.40 10.00 10.20 10.40 41.00 6.20 6.40 7.00 Z-? IN ALL ITS BRANCHES After reviewing the evidence and {papers in the record, I am satisfied [that the Magistrate erred and over- .looked in_ dealing with this case the `principle of law that it is the duty of a Magistrate to weigh the evidence {and to convict or acquit as he may find upon all the` evidence, remembera ing that the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. According to the ; view that I take of this case there was such a doubt about the guilt of the accused that the Magistrate should not have made a conviction." Tcate says he received it on February `the 9th, and that it was analysed on the 12th and the certificate is dated the 16th. 7.30 7.50 8.10 8.30 8.50 9.10 9.30 9.50 10.10 10.30 10.50 11.10 11.30 11.50 Leave Allandale 41 DUNLOP STREET Phone 447W, BARRIE. 12.10 12.30 12.50 1.10 1.30 1.50 2.10 2.30 2.50 . 3.10 3.30 - 3.50 . 410 4.30 4.50. 5.10 5.30 ' BUTTER ` BRAESIDE ERIIIEQIIIE BRAD CREAMERY uonestlbutnthllnuh A (5 A II MAY]-`ll-ZLD B.'E`"`. .. All Kine}: .o_1_z'..w_I-jun and} 'nEAEs}ni:' DI! AIlI'\ 5.50 6A0 6.30 6.50 740 7.30 7.50 840 8.30 8.50 910 9.30` 9.50 10.10 10.30 10.50 11.10 H. um-1=;' .;'x's42;"a..;s;:, THURSDAY. '.II;1~,IuAnv f Buy Advertised Things. Exceptionilly High Quality. ' ' 6 oz. FOR 25crs.% Bryson s TeaRooms sed ent A special feature of this lineis the large number of pieces to the_poun_d. Clea'ner,} %Pres er Dyer 109 DUNLOP ST. 229 NE!&5N S WHY WORRY ABOUT BRAKE INSPECTION w. TUR'l'ON'S GARAGE Real Dry Cleaning IHAVETHF. 0NLY DRY-CLEANING PLANT wrrum YOUR REACH. oursmz THE cm I AM A PRACTICAL TAILOR `READY TO % ATTEND TO REPAIRS ON ALL CLOTHES Goods called for and delivered._ PRICES REASONABLE E BRING IN YOUR BANISS 15.4 {YOUR CAR --i---------GET OUR PRICES Near Fisher Flour Mills, Maple Ave., Batrig. Phone 1128 Font We have recently adwclledvtn our ser\}ice`"tl1~e-1ates t equip- ment for Re-Lining Brakes_ and `carry a complete stock` - of all sizes of `_`ASBESTONOS, B-rake Lining.- RIQIQI3 I1! Gigi win 1 A nujnn u 2 --1 --u :2 1 - u-`cw tn - V1 V7 Hides Wanted HIGHEST PRICES PAID ..&a.I....L:..-. fV......_..L-_.1 l{ll\1l-IIHDL ILVLUIUQ IISLIJ Satisfaction Guaranteed Phone 384, or write . ZIrI-j 3 _. - -- 7:? Use Asbestonos. Brake Linihg ALWAYS` GRIPS A- NEVER SLlPS* " TRUE mun CHOCOLATE-is and Maple I Street Queen? Hotel "l"f\ DI\KT'l"f\ ' . Manon. may content to Cunudhnq. in even ptovinyt -_ ort ces ent no Jon T00 1316; `NONE T00 SMALL ACETYLBNE WELDING L TORONTO - (Opposita new Union Station) ' INVITES your patronage. All the oomforts of homo combined with modnato rates and high standard of Serum mahc tt tho most attractive stopping place. ` no ' ' AMERICAN `AND EUROPEAN PLA}$ Phovu or win your mcwation at our expand VHENRY Wxxxxu _ Prcdont zr-=nr2'rr-I '23, 1925. More Sold Any 4 other Brand; ltfc g*HE still was there in the swamp, which r V---v-yr-van nun vovnlvb vuuwo ' ' Stephens was convicted at one time or havin a still on his farm in a swamp. He ` enied that he had any- thing to do with it or knew that the was used for pasture only. a The onus was on him to prove his innocence, and not "being able to do so. he was `properly convicted. `That, howeve is no evidence against the defendants in this case. . I am afraid there is too much of an inclination these days where a man has once been nedto keep after him with the ideathat he is likely to break the law again in these Ontario Temperance cases. `This may be generally the case, but it is not always". Some men may accept the lesson of a large fine and the dis- grace that goes with itsand decide to reform, and they shouldpbe allowed to do so. So that in dealing with th'ese-cases no suspicion or other in- uence should in any way be allow- rities. 3 couvlcrlous % *UNDl.-`.R%O,.'l`%A`. %L %%AR_I2_ I 1 =c.nug.u.a min paeii ii. -according to .`their own evidence, I am bound to say that I would have had" such .a doubt of the truth of the story they told that I would not have made a conviction in either. of these cases in the face of the evidence of Mrs.` Stedphens, Mr./.Stephens , and Lahay an the > surrounding circumstances. The evidence -of" `Adams, another young fellow, corroborated that of Lahay in some minor details as to what took place at the American Hotel in: Barrie. So that with such a clear-'-cut denial and the way in which the evidence for the rosecu- tion reads, and the admitte record of the two s ecial officers, I would have had we a doubt of, the truth of the story of the officers as indic- ated that I would not have made a conviction in either case. 11$: vnvuaanuu .. any o-av-:5--a u- Uvvuv noun`, .. . `I am convinced that it was the for- mer success of Bradbury as a seller that made it possible forhim to buy so readily on thistrlp. These defend- ants sold a little of the stock on hand to anold friend and business acquain- tance who is now on a dry trip. unu____ ,.___1__;.1__.'._ 1..-..- 1.1.- ~nr_...I_ Anna guuannnvnnv non vonv Irvvw 3. . V-4.;-ow V...-.--.- It is therefore not a. case of weigh- ing evidence in the two present ap- peals butrather cases of unfair trials and therefore open to review by this Court. - "Yb In Land!" nonnuaou-my 4-n an nun`! Ul.lI'L. ' It is , hardly necessary to go over any more of the parts "of the Magis- trate's findings which show plainly that he dealt ~ with the cases; as stated by using the evidence in all the cases or considering it .in the disposi- tion of _the two present cases `against Lahay and -Stephens. "'l`I-in nvlnnna `lrffhn nfhnr nnsnn 9.- ants. , - In the Magistrate's findings he stat- es thatahe used the evidence that Brad- b`urywas 3; bootlegger and that Brad- bury had_.1iquor`transact1ons with some of `the other defendant in .arrivin,<.'>; at a conclusion as to the guiltuof all the defendants. This is not. fair to Laha..V or Stephens who were not shown to have had any former transactions in quor with either Bradbury or Cough- n_ . ' Tn 4-15.", 1\'o o- : finincru fhn ale nt 1111. . fIn the Magistrate's findings the` following statements occur amongst o.thers:-`However, the callous indif- ference of Bradbury in going among his old customers in `this new role (particularly with regard to Stephens) certainly merits the comments of De- fence Counsel duringsthe examination. There was no evidence that Stephens was an old customer. 'l'Vhn' Flniua-a nf `flan 'l\II'ucrh:hnnfn anal w-nvv vv on`: any any n u..- -. ....., These quotati ns from the Magis- trate's findings show that in giving judgment against Stephens and Lahay he had in mind and was influenced by the fact that some of the other defend- ants are shown to have had former liquor dealings with Bradbury. The Magistrate therefore acted improper- ly in letting evidence which might have been admitted in the other cases affect his judgment` in the two present cases. gnu. 3.. ;.I..._..n'...... -5 .. Ann). .-.6 nu-J.-win uunuy- unu 'D(.UpuUil5. ~ "The evidence in the other cases a- gainst Dunn, Chatterson, Smith and Morris may have `beenvery convincing but it is not evidence a.ga1ns_t`Stephene and Lahay. In fact most of the find- ings really have reference to Smith. Chatterson and Morris cases from which no appeal wa.s`taken. Reference I-nlv J uuannnvnnv vvnn ulna uv-r o In the two present cases no evi- 'dence `was given that Bradbury, one of the spotters, had'pz-eviously had any `liquor transactions with either Stephens or Lahay. No`evidence was given in either of these cases that Bradbury had been a bootlegger. In the other four cases evidence may have been given that Bradbury was a boot- legger and had previously had liquor~ dealings with the other four defend- ants. UT (-Inn Tllfnn-hsl-unlvn a -P `kn afof Wa.8 an Ulu UUSLUIIIUIC. I Thefindings of the Magistrate are applied to all six cases without dis- tinction. The Magistrate says:--`Bu_t there arises here a strange coincidence in that -the liquor turned in to the. Department as having been received by Chatterson should turn out to be the kind of liquor and bottle admitted to have -been there. There is this cor- roboration of` the evidence of the two operators. The Magistrate herespeaks of this corroboration as affecting each of the defendants. The Magistrate was evidently affected by such evidence when giving his decision in t_he two present cases against Lahay and Ste- phens. The corroboration mentioned by the Magistrate in connection with the Smith case also has no bearing on the two present cases against La- hay and Stephens." - `urn-u.- -nr__..t...4._..4... .....'... 4.1.-` cu......1..-..... UL LBLUI. U1 I.llB.$Vl.H.lBI.l'il.I,U. Where it is clearlya case of con- flicting testimony with a direct or ap- parent finding of fact by the Mag- istrate there -is no doubt about the authority of the" Dean and Raddicliffe` cases reported in 55 0.L.R. at page 635 and Wood v. I-Iaines. an Ontario case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and reported in 38- 0.L.R. at-page 583.-The latter case says that it must be an extraordinary case in which an appellanttribunal can accept the responsibility of differ- ing as_to the credibility of witnesses from a trial judge who saw: and_,.watch- ed them. The `two present_ cases -are quite different from the two cases "mentioned. While it is. as stated, not the duty of an appellant tribunal to weigh conflicting evidence, but still being careful as not to do so it has the` responsibility to see that the defend- ants have been convicted upon legal and sufficient evidence and with apro- per application of the rules of evidence and wherever it is clear to the appel- lant tribunal, going by the record, that these principles have not been observ- ed and the defendants have not had a proper trial and that the magistrate has disposed of the cases upon grounds which are improper, the conviction is open to review by the appellant tri- hunal. A-Fran `flan flnlncr n? 9114:: nun!-Ina \ uuxwu. - _ After quoting `the finding of the Magistrate, which was given in The Examiner when the trial was reported. the judgment `continues:--- M 417.. 4.1.... L u . A u . n A; l\I\tIt\(I -`A '1-nit` now; umaun -uyvy nnnnn I-an V The Magistrate says that Stephens has no evidence except. the denial of /Mrs. Stephens. He has overlooked that Stephens and Lahay gave evidence on their own defence and also that Adams gave evidence on a minor in- cident. The Magistrate says:- no _._, ---_._-x..__.s A.|._L .u. __--... 1.1.- 3-; ed te ihterfere with a fair dispositien ' of the charge agamst the accused.` "In fhn nrnnnt (wanna on Inlnofn LU IL. . ' ` - V It was arguedbefore me that there was nothing more in these two cases than conflicting evidence and that the Magistrate who saw the witnesses must have believed the two special officers and disbelieved the witnesses. for the defence and under those cir- cumstances it is not open for me, sit- ting on appeal, to review the finding of fact or the Magistrate. 7hn'ra If In nlncndv a noun nf Ann- Ed 95 k Av` vuu uuprge ugulnb. B116 accuses}. _ In the in-esent cases, asvsindicated, the only witnesses tor the `prosecution were thetwo special officers, with not very good records themselves. a.nd when ?`liB'Wa8 the caseand they in- vited .he accused to commit the of- fense. in fact they go to considerable trouble to do so, i their evidence .I thought should be examined with ex- treme care and caution and in the ab- sence of corroboration it" is a question of viizhat weight, it any, should be given to . ' UL W! to it. own. ` THE` BARRIE EXAMINER tan. page (:01. U1. oo u..u.n.. I `am therefore of the opinion that, the Magistrate _erred in disposing of; these cases as he did, that in using the` evidence in all the different casesa against Lahay and Stephens, and hav- ing reviewed theevidence and the pro- -ceedings in the record I have come to,~ the conclusion .for the reasons given; the convictions in both cases should be quashed with the usual protection `to the Magistrate. The Dunn _ Case The accused in this case was charg- ed with selling liquor on February the. 3rd, 1925, and was fined under section` 40 of the Act. The judgment reads: The nnlv -evienoe fnr fhn` nrnemr-n... -xv U]. uu-: nut. Luz: Juuglllellt reads: The only -evidence for the` prosecu-~. tion was that of the two special of- ficers, Bradbury and Coughlin. There is no corroboration of their evidence in anyway. Bradbury himself was ag bootlegger on rather an extensive scale for two years and _upwards and hadl only been out of that business for a short time, Coughlin seems to have, lived with him in Toronto for a time? and in that `Way they got acquaintedi with each ~other s ways and started out together as special officers engag- ed by the Department. Without con- sidering the defence I am of the op- inion that I would not have given any` credit to the story put up.by the two special officers. That at any rate is the opinion '1 formed upon the read- ing of the evidence in the record`. With the admitted life they seem to have led, I don t think their evidence should have been relied upon without some corroboration and as stated there was none. . - 'n. .... .. '....4. Iv\v\ a nuyh-lnnnn vvvnn unt- 4LLU1 llUUll LKUIII. LIIIIUU L111 uxuc. ' Ittwas argued thatfthis was entire- ly a case of weighing evidence: but as` Ivhave held in the Stephens and La.- hay cases that where the question to be decided` depends entirely upon the credibility of witnesses with no other circumstances then it is not the duty of the appellant tribunal ,to weigh the evidence but he must accept the find- ings of fact of the magistrate. Where. however, the magistrate has disposed of the case upon` a wrong principle or in any way that was irregular so that the accused did not have aproper trial then the case is open to.review. Tho 'hu-In-vnnnf in Han Taahav nn --_,_..,-.. --.-y _pnl\r yuvya-ynnu wumavn It has been held over and over again that it is contrary to the rules and principles of the Common Law that -Justices should mix up. two (or more) criminal charges and convict or. acquit in one ofeethem with any refer- ence to the facts appearing in the other. In the present cases against La- hay and Stephens the wrong is seven- more apparent as the evidence in six cases at least was mixed up and con- sidered in each of the present ones.` iatpage 231 of 38 O.L.R. The law is reviewed and the cases) given in Rex v Lap_ointe, 20 Can. Cr.| cases at page 98, also Rex v Melvin T nun fhovnfnrn n4 4-Inn n-xi.-An.` 4-1...; That might be so but his story was HUI. UUGIIII5 WILH Lila-L, IIUWUVUIR It was urged before me that on ac- count of the way in which Dunn gave his evidence on a collateral matter his evidence should not be accepted at all. corroborated in parts by his wife, his stenographer, `by Vair andby Cald- well. Had I been trying the case` I would have relied considerably on Caldwell s evidence corroborated by Vair. He said that what the two wit- nesses, Bradbury and Coughlin, say took place could not have happened as hewas_ only away from Dunn's pre- mises for about fifteen minutes that afternoon from three till nine. `I'.1:ynn nun:-send C-Iv|n ft\`n Iivnzu A-`I-Inn sale T LIIUII LIIU UU.b` 15 ULIUII LU-l.'UVlUWo The judgment in the Lahay and d Stephens case might` be referred to as the same two special officers were -the Crown witnesses and the same principles of law were dealt with that are mentioned in this case. ~ The Magistrate erred in this case,` as he did in the Lahay and Stephens cases,- in disposin of six cases at once in the same wr tten document. Ac- cording to the record the evidence in the other five cases was anbarentlzv considered as part of the evidence against Dunn. In fact a great deal or `the evidence mentioned in thefindinizs does not appear in "the `evidence in the _ Dunn case at all. A anon` Anal nf alumna: urea laid nu .........n.. ...,5.~.n..n. ~.-.au.a.u,_y I uuuu u.n.vpu.v__A1u. In the Stephens case there is no evidence that Stephens had any liquor even by the evidence for the prosecu- -tion. -Evidence for the prosecution was that Lahay had liquor, sold it and was paid for it. This, even if it were true and uncontradlcted, should not be in- terjected into the Stephens case. ' M11. 1.... 1.--; 1_-1_1 WELE JIUIIU. _ I ,Dunn s evidence was not very sat- isfactory and was certainly very much weakened by his denial of having any I dealings with Bradbury_ before as a bootlegger. He apparently thought he had to deny this and no doubt relied there is always honor among thiev- es;" but in this he was mistaken as Bradbury did not stop at his evidence against the accused. his old customer. under this Ontario Temperance .Act charge. He produced letters to show that Dunn did have dealings with him` upon the old saying being true thatl and thereby likely left Dunn open for Anni-her rehnrgn nf nnni-ham lzin `I am .lJl.l!lIl 08.38 8.1. an. ' A great _deal of stress was laid on . the fact that Dunn's evidence was very unsatisfactory and for this reason he should receive no consideration. It is `true that if his defence depended upon his own evidence "it would be a very difficult matter to decide between Dunn and the two special officers but I am` bound, however. to sayvthat if I had to choose between the two I would prefer to accept theevidence Of_Dunn rather than that of the two special officers under all the circumstances of this case. . Vlnn Incplulvinnl-a hon QQIA fkl)` Hana In markabie trip. one of the defendants` |.Uo"' ` The.-very evidence relied on to am! credit Bradbury goes a. long way`: to: account for `the success of this. re-! frankly admits being"a former custom- ' er,and another also admits it but not so frankly, while two others admit that ; Bradbury during his operations made; their home a point of calm. , . o "l`hA1-A in nn avlnnnn nrhofntrnn All CIIUIIV IIUIIIC a. PUIIIL UL 08.15%. There is no evidence whatever of ' anv of this in regard to_ Stephens or Lahay. \ V - Annfhnr not-navonh Iniakflkn uuslhu... cu l.Ui I. I "There is this corroboration of the: evidence of. the two operators. Sarvis wears that they were employees` of the Department, paid a salary and no- commission;' that the Department ac-I cepts their reports; acts on them and. that they are now acting on them.` I (`TL In `An. L1.-A `IlL`_..I_.L..`J.- 1.- _-__ _._ _.......- -.-v_, -.w ..-an v-vs-An-a_ van uanusano It is for the Magistrate to say as to whether the evidence of the operat- ors can be depended on or not. The fact that the Department employs them is not corroboration nor should it be in any way used or thought of as evi-_ dence against Lahay and Stephens. Tr. flan Gtnnlnnun an... 41...... 1- _- uuu I-llUl.'UUy unexy, IULI. JJUIIH. Up! another charge of another kind. not dealing with that, however. T! 1179: wood hnfnv-n I-no Mani n '13 `also madein the` findings to a sev- enth case which -apparently was brought out in some of the other cases and which was tried `in the County of York and `was against some parties be- longing to the Peek Inn ! Roa.dhouse,= close to Bradford. '"l`}uuu3 85 sign n-.nLI..u. ..'..-....._....._I.. -3 n. 1926. ux_uv LU Druuluru. _ ` | There is also another paragraph of . Ehe findings which might be re'f9rred o:-- '- I BIIC II` to:-- UVIWL. uuuuy. =Another paragraph mightlbe referr-V ed to: . -lilnnmn {A 4-Li- .-........-.I......_..4..l-.. -3 `Lu__I OI [1118 C386. A The Magistrate has said that here is no evidence of any bootleg ing in this famous trip of these t 0 officers. meaning thereby, I would think, that there was only` evidence of ordinary` sales and drinking in each case. 'l\nv-u-u afns-qr 4-Raf Inc all!` nnf an" fhnf sales EHO. QFIHKIIIE III. 88.1511 158.56- Dunn s story that he did not sell that evening is corroborated by his wife. the stenographer and Vair and Cald- well. If Caldwell was around Dunn's place that day from. three o'clock in thexatternoon until nine at night-with only a.na_baence- of titteen, minutes a.- _bout `six o'clock (and.--;the"r'e"'do`esn't farmer who is in .no way interested) what`-`the officers say. did happen could not have happened. He says these men urn!-A hnf that-A and nnultl not has an { seem to Be an)?" retison`--t this . IIUL IIEVU |I|.l[.lUllUll. 116 3%]! IIIUBU In Tweregnot there and could not be t_h_ey put: It-`w1thout.'lutp. knowing . I The officers say that they came tof Dunn s office at 7.15 and they talked :a while. Their evidence is a little dif- `ferent as to this but as I make it out they were in Dunn's office likely be-} tween thirty and forty minutes ac-', cording to them. ' I111. __.- _