Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1853-07-14
Chr p oilp spy.
THURSDAY. JULY IA, 1858.
For The snr.

Police Courts and the s.BTaine Law
Messrs Editors: A good deal of complaint is
made by many people, and very worthy people too,
about the action Of the Judges Of the Police Courts,
under the Maine Liquor Law, called. Justice 10
the public, as we'll as 70 the judges Of the Police
Courts seems to require exposition Of the embar-
RAISING difficulties which the Judges ofihese courts
labor uuder and the obstacles in the way Of an en-
forcement Of the law.
The public are aware of the fact that by the pro-
visions Of this law, the penalties go the town or
city which offence against the law is commit
ted. And the fact is also very generally understood,
that the Police Courts OF The cities in this Com
monweah have exclusive cities Of all offences
committed within their respective jurisdictions. so
that an offence committed within any city, must be
heard and examined by the Police Court othe city,
or not at all; with The single exception Of presenting
The matter originally to the Grand Jury.
TIE grand difficulty is, the disqualifying interest
ofthe judges in the penalties. A case arose several
years ago. under the old ''sunday Law commonly
so called in which this question of interest was dis
tinctly presented TO the Supreme Court and by that
Court Composed at that time of Parker, Thatcher,
for their great legal learning and judgment,) dis
tinctly considered and settled. One George A.
Pearce arrested, a warrant issued by E. Par
sons, ESQ.,, OF Belcherown, for travelling within the
town OF Belcheriown on the Lords day. The con-
stable, one John Atwood, who made The arrest, was
sued by Pearce, for trespass and false imprisonment
in arresting him, and verdict in damages was OBJ
tanned by Pearce, against the constable, on the
ground that the magistrate disqualified, by rea-
son of interest, from issuing the warrant; and the
arrest was therefore illegal and void. See Pearce
VS.. Atwood, IL Massachusetts Reports.
The constable, Atwood, appealed, and presented
the question. before stated to the Supreme Court,
where il deliberately argued by The most distin-
guIshed lawyers Of the time. Under that law, half
Ofthe penalty went to the complainant, and half 10
the town; and the Court decided, in very essbo
rate opinion drawn up by Chief Justice Parker, that
the magistrate disqualified, by reason Of inter-
est, and the warrant, therefore. was void; and udg-
ment was rendered against Atwood, the constabIe
Now, the principle here established, applies di.
recty the Justices Of the Police Courts, and with
double force, the whole penalty goes to the city.
This objection made to a large number of
cases that went up by appeal from the Police Court
oil Lowel,to Judge Merrck, while holding Court in
Middlesex Co. Judge Merrick Of course recognized
the superior authority of the Supreme Court, and
dismissed the cases. Judge Perkins has also sus-
tanned the same principle in Essex county.
This presents the question whether it is a wise
and prudent discharge Of official duty, for Police
Courts to issue warrants under the Maine Law, in
this state Of things-subjecing the public to costs,
and exposing the officers who serve the warrants. to
prosecution. This question, every discreet citizen
must settle for hmself and at the same time, leave
the Judges Of the Police Courts 10 act as they think
wise and prudent, till the legality Of their iurisdic-
ton is settled blythe present Supreme Court Of Mas.
sachusetts. ~
P..S. tits understood that in the cities Of New
buryport aud New Bedford, provision is made
against this disquaIfyng interest in their Police
Justices An enactment Of three lines by the Legis-
lature, would relieve the whole difficulty.