Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1885-11-25

the record contained no real charges against
Mr. Bailey. The charges are dead. Time
AFTER time since the charges were made. Mr..
BAILEY has been elected city marshal of Bath.
The last time he was chosen to the Office the
vote In the City Council stood "a to in his
favor. Mr.. Trott read Mr.. Bailey's affidavit
In which be denied the charges against him.
and asserted that Mayor Wakefield had fire.
quently asked him to let up on the LIQUOR
sellers.
At the request of the counsel for the re-
monstrants Mr.. James Bailey was sworn.
ne testified on cross-exsmination Thomas
Brown. Edward Dunnell and Mr.. Wakefield.
were present when we had the interview in
the Custom House. Brown and DunneIl came
IN after had entered the room. | never was
at work for Mr.. Bailey at any time while city
marshal have received money from Mr.,
Mayberry while marshal. When locked
up men for MIR. Mayberry he paid me lookup
ices. l never stated to anyone that l re-
ceived 800 from Mr.. Mayberry denied
before the committee of the City Council thai
ever received letter from any one except
Mr.. Wakefield containing money. stand by
my affidavit that Mr.. Wakefield came to me
and wanted me to let up on enforcing the law,
during the first two years was city mar shall.
Mr.. Hogan stated that the temperance peo-
pie IN order to make up case in favor of
Mr.. Bailey's appointment had obtained upon
their petitions even the signatures of the in
mates of the Old Ladies' Home of Bath The
question at issue today has become changed
from whether or not State constable shall
De appointed, to question of veracity. Mr..
Wakefield and his friends do not object to
the appointment of a State constable, but
they do object to the appointment of Mr..
Ra Inv h., 1. q.
man in Bath the superior of Mr.. Bailey as a
police officer. but we have not man in the
city who is not his superior as an enforcer of
the prohibitory law. When he comes here
with the records of the city council expunged,
then he can say that he has been INDICATED
OF the charge of having accepted brides. If
he Is the only person fit to fill the position
then the people of .SBgadahoc county need
Gods help. Either one side or the other
have been guilty of perjury and we propose
to leave 1t so that the question can be settled
ia the court if desired.
G. I. Hooper being called testified that he
served upon traverse jury some years since,
when Judge Dickerson was on the bench,
james Bailey testified and when the Jurors
were leaving the court room he approached
one of them, regarding the verdict. Mr.
Bailey afterwards testified in open court, as
well as Mr.. Adams and the juror. regarding
the matter. Mr.. Bailey denied approaching
him for perjury and abusing the jury, and
said if the grand jury was present he would
have him indicted for the same.
x2Silas Adams of Bowdoinham, corroborated
the above. The case upon which a verdict
had been rendered was liquor case Mr.
Bailey was police officer at the time.
j. w. Wakefield denied that he ever asked
Mr.. Bailey to modify his enforcement of the
liquor law as stated in Bailey's affidavit, and
never had any conversation with him upon
that subject. He thought he could safely say
that for the last eight or ten years he had not
been on the bond of any liquor seller. Am
at present mayor of Bath, and as l under
stand the law have endeavored to have the
law enforced in a proper manner.
Mr.. Hogan then submitted the afidavits of
Mr.. Wakefield, in which he deposed that
Eben B. Mayberry, proprietor of the Saga
dahoc House, gave him two letters, address,
ed to Mr.. Bailey to put in the postoffce.
When Mayberry gave him the second letter
he acknowledged that it contained 500, and
that he had previously paid him money. The
affidavit also contained an account of Bal
ley's acknowledging having received money
from Mayberry and also that Mayberry con-
fessed to himself, T. w. HYDE and Mr. Wm
Rogers that he had paid Bailey money for
six months at time. Mr.. Hyde was mayor
of the city at the time. Mr.. Wakefield also
produced a recent letter from Mayberry, now
in Lowell, Mass, in which that gentleman
denied having paid Bailey any money.
The affidavit of General Hyde was present
ed, in which he deposed that while he was
mayor Mayberry came to Wakefield's Office,
and while there acknowledged paying Bailey
money which he (Hyde) believed from the
conversation was paid for illegal purposes.
The affidavit of Mr.. William Rogers was
also presented, in which he deposed that
that he was at Mr.. Wakefields office
and heard Ballet acknowledge having receiv-
ed money from Mayberry. few days later,
at the same place, Mr.. Mayberry acknowl-
edged having paid Bailey money.
Mr.. Hogan was a member of the committee
of the city council in 1880 appointed to ex-
anime the charges against Bailey, and stated
to the Governor and Council that an easy re-
port was made, that it might not result in the
sending of both Bailey and Mayberry to the
State Prison. The affidavit Of the several
other members Of the committee was present
ed, reiterating the facts of the report now
spread upon the records Of the city council.
The affidavit of John w. Ballou. the present
sheriff of Sagadahoc county, was also pre-
scented to prove that Mayberry acknowledged
to him that he had paid Bailey money.
George A. Smith, who was clerk OF the
Sagadahock House under Mayberry, deposed
that Mayberry often spoke of having bought
Bailey, and that when searches of the hotel
were made by Bailey he Bailey first mott
fed the proprietor and the liquors were re-
moved. C. H. Smith deposed to the same
fact
Philemon Brown, clerk of the St. Charles
Hotel, Lowell, deposed that Mayberry had
acknowledged having paid Bailey money
while he was proprietor of the Sagadhock
House. The deposition of John Gilmore
was presented to the same effect. Mr.. Gill
more being present was called, and personal
ly affirmed the truth of his affidavit, and that
Mayberry had recently said to him in Lowell
that were he keeping bar in Bath he would
rather have Mr.. Bailey mrrshal than any
other man.
Mr.. Wakefield being called upon said that
in writing the letter, some time since pub
lished by him, it was not written with any in
tention of alleging Mr.. Bailey guilty OF per-
jury in such a manner that no libel suit could
be brought against him. He was willing to
deposit the money required by Mr.. Bailey to
bring libel suit if desired. and he was also
willing to show where there was enough
property to pay whatever execution might be
found against himself as the result of such
trial.