Covington Ky
August 1, 1864
To/
His Excellency Gov.^r Bramlette,
Dear Sir,

The facts alleged in the accompanying petition of Mr. Boswell are true, within my own knowledge, in every particular.

He was indicted in the court here for selling liquor to a minor, was not apprized of what the proof would be until he went into trial: there was no other charge against him, no other indictment, save the one in question.

On trial the only proof adduced by the Commonwealth was that he had, on one or two occasions, sold a small glass of the beverage or drink known as "ginger wine" to one Dan. Farrell — not quite 21 years of age. The sale indeed was not made by Mr. Boswell, nor within his knowledge; but by Mr. Creighton John Flinn, a bar keeper for Mr. B. and under his employ; Mr. B. being responsible for the bar keeper's acts.

Mr. James M Laughlin, proprietor of the Clinton Hotel of this city, a witness called by Mr. Boswell, testified that he had sold for about 6 years, the beverage known as ginger wine; and that to the best of his knowledge of it, and observation of its effects, it did not contain a particle of spiritous or vinous liquor. A pure article of ginger wine contained no intoxicating properties. There might be spiritous or vinous liquor in our impure article; but this was not "ginger wine" any more than the adulterated liquors sometimes sold as claret or port wine were the genuine port or claret. He had never manufactured ginger wine; but believed it to contain nothing intoxicating.

Our penal statute in question inflicts a penalty for selling to a minor "spirituous or vinous liquor, or a mixture of either."

The jury found Mr. Sutton guilty of the selling &c. But an hour or two after this finding he was informed by Mr. Isaac Sutton, an old manufacturer of "ginger wine," that

the article in question did not contain spiritous or vinous liquor or a mixture of either; upon which newly discovered evidence — he having known nothing of such evidence before, else he would have used it on trial — Mr. Boswell moved in arrest of judgment, and for a new trial. This motion the court overruled, holding that "the ginger wine sold should have been proved should have been proved to contain no spiritous or vinous liquor." ^This ruling involved a presumption that Mr. B. had sold an impure and not a pure article.^ Surprised at this decision, I intended to have carried the case to the court of appeals; but as there was only $50 involved in the case — that being the fine — and as necessary professional charges and Expenses would hardly justify an appeal in such a case — however meritorious — I determined to advise Mr. B. to pay fees and costs, and appeal to Executive Clemency. He is a poor man though thoroughly honest, moral, and law abiding. I trust his application will be granted

Respectfully Your Excellency's Obt. Servt
R. Richardson

His Excellency
Gov^r Tho^s E Bramlette
Frankfort