Feb. 17, 1917

NO EVIDENCE TO CONVICT LAMPORT IN BOOZE CASE

A verdict of not guilty was brought in by the jury that heard the case against Ed Lamport of Medford, accused of illegally importing liquor into the state, contrary to the provisions of the Bone Dry act. The jury was out five minutes.

The case of the state was weak, the evidence failing to prove the allegations that Lamport had come from Hornbrook to Phoenix, where he was said to have gotten off the train with two suitcases and a bundle of booze and to have entered his car and driven to his home.

The conductor and brakeman of No. 16 stated that two men had gotten off at Phoenix, but were unable to identify Lamport. The sheriff stated that he had met Lamport's car a mile and a half from Phoenix and trailed it until he finally lost sight of it.

The two suitcases and packing box of liquor seized in a raid on Lamport's house we're not introduced as evidence.

Some difficulty was experienced getting a jury, and the answers of the rail journeyman of two questions of the attorneys furnished amusement to the crowd in attendance. When asked if they had any prejudiced against a man for keeping liquor in his home practically every man answered that he had either had liquor and his home at the present time or that he was temporarily out.

BAPTISTS FILE PROTEST ARTICLE IN MAIL TRIBUNE

The revival meeting opened last night with a vote of the members of the Baptist Church in which they voted to the effect that so far as the Baptists were concerned that never in the past had been and never in the future would fermented wine be used in the making of the Sacrament. And they resented the fact that an editorial had appeared in the Mail Tribune — In which it was made to appear that church leaders were asking a privilege of the state. This was followed by a vote of all Christians present from every denomination that they too used only unfermented wine in Sacrament.

Then followed a short talk on the book of Daniel which a warning was timely spoken.