Worcester daily spy., 1860-05-28

Mr.. Editor Il ask the favor of a space in
your columns to vindcate myself against state.
ments which appeared in the Worcester Trans
cript of Saturday last and which, unans cred,
would seem to place me in false position,
which do not intend voluntarily to occupy
The first statement to which | reply is as fol
lows, and refers to the present term of the Su-
perior Court: "The term has been a remarkable
one because of the large number of defective
complaints coming up from lesser courts by
appeal, and i'll which the papers have been
found to be detective" Three cases from the
Police Court of Worcester, against parties for
illegally transporting liquors were dismissed
by the court-two OF them were dismissed be-
cause they did not contain the name of the
party or parties to whom they were to be de.
Hvered for illegal sale. Such name was not
put into the complaints for the reason that the
City Marshal, who is the prosecuting officer in
the Police Court, and who made the COM
plants, did not know, and could not prove to
whom said liquors were to be delivered for
such illegal sale. In the third case, it rdS al
legged that the liquors were being conveyed
from the Providence freight depot to the store
or building owned and occupied by Michael
O'Driscoll, he, the said Drisco, then and
there intending to sell the same liquors illegal
ly in this Commonwealth. Gen. Devens
prosecuted this case for the government in the
Police Court, carefully examined the papers
before trial, and, although considered quite as
good lawyer as the editor of the Transcript
was unable to find any defect in the papers.
This case was not dismissed in the Superior
Court for any defect in the papers, but because
the government were not able to prove that
the liquors were to be illegally sold by Captain
O'Diiscoll. In the other two cases before
spoken of, if the name had been known and
alleged, in all probability they would have
shared the same fate as the other case-been
dismissed for want of proof. No other cases
from the Worcester Police Court were dismiss.
ed for defect in the papers,
Again, | cut from the Transcript: ain the
case Of the Police Office in this city, Mr.. JiIson
was appointed in February, the appointment
to take place April first, of course the exist
ing clerks term expired at that time by re.
moyal. But Mr.. Jilson's sickness preventing
his attendance to the duties, the old clerk held
over to May 18th, without authority. OF the
twelve or fifteen appeal cases that occurred in
that time, only four or five are of much inn
portance."
Mr.. Jilson was appointed in February, to
take effect on the first day of April following,
and was duly qualified previous to that time.
AT the time OF his appointment he received
from the proper authority what is termed a
"snpercedure," directed to me, and which was
intended to notify me Of my removal accord
ing to the tenor of the new appointees com.
mission. This supercedure was not handed to
me until the fifteenth day of May. This was
my first official notification of removal from Of
flee. The statement that held over "without
authority" may pass for what it is worth 1t
was imperative upon me to discharge the du-
ties OF my office until | was officially notified
of my removal, unless | chose to resign, which
would have been very improper for me to
have done during the sickness of Mr.. Jilson
The Transcript also says, speaking of the
liquor law, the street seizures, and defective
papers 1.-The law is clear, however, and all
such cases another term will hardly be vitiated
by mistakes in the papers"
The friends of the law will be happy to
learn from the Transcript that the claw is
clear" and that there will be no danger hereaf-
ter from defect in the papers. If they can be
equally as fortunate in furnishing the "proof"
of the allegations, there will be no difficulty
hereafter in enforcing the law in the city Of
Worcester. j. b. DEXTER, JR.