R. Richardson to Thomas E. Bramlette
1864-08-01
- Date of Creation
- August 1, 1864
- Place of Creation
- Covington, Kenton County, Kentucky
- Document Genre
- Correspondence
- Repository
- Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives
- Collection
- Office of the Governor, Thomas E. Bramlette: Governor's official correspondence file, petitions for pardons, remissions, and respites 1863-1867
- Box / Folder
- BR11-237 to BR11-238
- CWGK Accession Number
- KYR-0001-004-1135
- Rights
- This image and its transcription are freely available to the public. Images appear courtesy of Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives. Transcriptions and annotations were created by Kentucky Historical Society staff, volunteers, and interns. When referencing this document, please use our preferred citation.; The use of transcriptions, images, or annotations from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce any material on CWGK is required.
- FTP Identifier
- 32204022
The Civil War Governors of Kentucky editors are working on annotations for this document. Check back to explore the people, places, organizations mentioned in this document.
- Dates
- 1864-08-01
Citation
R. Richardson to Thomas E. Bramlette, 1864-08-01, Office of the Governor, Thomas E. Bramlette: Governor's official correspondence file, petitions for pardons, remissions, and respites 1863-1867, Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives. Accessed via the Civil War Governors of Kentucky Digital Documentary Edition, https://discovery.civilwargovernors.org/document/KYR-0001-004-1135 (February 13, 2026).
Covington Ky
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
Govr Thos E Bramlette
Frankfort
