The Portland daily press., 1877-03-23
Superior Court.

MARCH CIVIL TERM, 1877, sYMoNDs, j.. PREsID-
ING.
In the case George Hearn VS.. Daniel Mccain
decision was rendered for the plaintiff for amount
claimed.
Iarrabee for plaintiff. Frank for defendant.
Matthew Adams VS.. James McGlincny. Action Of
trespass to recover damages for the taking and
rying away of lot of liquors.
In July, 1872, the plaintiff, then deputy sheriff,
by virtue OF a warrant from the Municipal Court,
seized the liquors in questionable gallons net
which were duly libeed. On the 9th of July. while
the proceedings on the libel were pending, the liquors
were taken out of the possession of Adams by Cor.
oner Charles H. Hail by virtue of a replevin writ
and delivered to McGlinchy, who Immediately ship
ped them out Of the State No further service of the
replevin writ was made and it was never returned
into court.
Thereupon the plaintiff, Adams, brought this suit
to recover the value of the liquors. The case was
tried before Judge Symonds in 1876, and decision
was rendered for the plaintiff. The defendant took
exceptions to the ruling upon matters of law and the
case was argued before the law court exceptions
were overuled and by the agreement of parties the
case up for the presiding Judge to fix the
damages which, by the decision of the full bench,
were to be the market value of the liquors at the
time they were replevied.
at the time of the seizure and before the goods were
repevied McGlincby said to Perry, then sheriff. that
the liquors were worth four or five thousand dol
lars, Adams testified that after the seizure Nc
Glinchy came to him and asked him if he meant to
rob him, saying the liquors seized were an old and
valuable lot of liquors and worth three or four thous
and dollars and that some of them were imported
liquors.
These conversations McGlinchy denied. McCue,
then the clerk of McGinchy, and who had charge of
The sorehouse or cellar where the liquors were stored
testified that although some of the packages had the
appearance of and were bran led as imported liquors
yet there was not an imported article among them )
that the whiskey, gin, brandies, Santa Cruz rum
etc, were all of a lowl grade of liquors, manufac-
tured from pure spirit, "doctored" and favored to
initiate the different classes and grades OF liquors
they we're intended to represent; that taking the
average value Of the whole lot it was not worth over
one dollar per gallon.
McGlinchy did not pretend to know exactly what
tbe lot contained but he corroborated McCue as to
the cost of the different brands which ranged from
one dollar and ten cents up to dollar and sixty
five cents per gallon. McGlinchy did not produce
single invoice of any part of the liquors showing
what they cost him. saying they were lost, nor did
he produce any evidence of what he received fo
+bom when he sold them after he obtained them Oh
the replevn writ.
Judae Svmonds fixed the value of the liquors a
$4,000.
The Court suggested that inaSmuch as there Nigh
be some question as to whether this money belongs
to the State or the County, the County Attorne
should inquire into the matter and notify the Attor
ney General Of this decision.
Butler & Libby for plaintiff,
Putnam for defendant.