The Portland daily press., 1895-02-16
GUILTY.
Jury's Verdict Against Herbert Blake
of HOllewell.

Determined Defence-Dfstrict Attor-
ney Bradbury's Able Statement of the
Case and the Defense of Deputy Mar
shall Prescott from the Attacks of Mr..
Standardization Filed-The Sem
tence Next Week.
In the United States court Friday the
case against Herbert Blake of Hallowell
for assaulting us. Deputy Marshal Pres
colt was concluded, and the jury re-
turned verdict of guilty.
The case opened with the argument
of Arson M. Goddard, ESQ.,. of Augusta,
for the defense. He spoke at some length
and made an able statement.
He declared that the officers conduct
in the afternoon was such that Mr.. Blake
had good reason to believe that he was
NOT a u. S. marshal. II signed his name
on that register Melville Prescott, for
the purpose of misleading. 1t did mis-
lead. Hadn't Mr.. Blake right to take
him at his word? In the evening he
comes in different character. badge
doesn't make an officer. Mr.. Blake, hav-
inc reason to doubt his character.
will not 60 to Portland with him till he
sees the proper authority. He had
right to have the warrant shown to him
SO that he could see what it was.
The officers impulse was to show the
warrant, because he saw the reasonable
ness of itsin Blake's action. He took the
W arrant from his pocket, but didn't
| 80 that Mr. PloEa could see what
it was. Here is significant fact. He
undoubtedly intended to show it to Mi.
Blake, but when he took the paper half
way out he discovered that he did not
have warrant, that Mr.. McCausland
had given him the wrong paper. lie
was in a dilemma. He must either ask
RIake to wait till he went and got the
warrant or pursue the course which ne
did. He put the paper back in his
pocket and became angry and said ne
was not obliged to have warrant. why
did he say that if he had one in his
pocket? Would any reasonable man, who
didn't want to kick up fuss. take hve
or ten minues to argue whether he ought
to have warrant if he did have the war
rant in his pocket? He would have taken
it out and shownsit. He did not have IT,
That is the only explanation OF the situa-
ton.
He was mortified at his mistake. He
became angry. and claim that he was
the first to use violence, and then Mr..
Blake retaIiated. His subsequent con-
duct. his use of profanity in the presence
If Blake's sister show that he was very
angry.
4 There was no cause for his refusal to
show the warrant. But what does he
do two hours after the punishment he
had received, but come back to the City
Marshal's o.Ece and show Mr.. Blake
warrant. Why should he do that? Ii he
would not show warrant before the
injury he received from Mr.. Blake, is it
reasonable that he would do SO after
ward? Now, gentlemen, there is only
one conclusion, and that is that he
didn't have the warrant in the hotel.
| If it requires that kind of punishment
to make Mr.. Prescott courteous enough
show warrant that he-would not show
| before. then he is different from any
other man know.
/ He made mistake in not having the
/ warrant, a mistake in not admitting
that to Mr.. Blake, and now he must back
nm the mistake in this court. 1t is a
m stake all through.
Mr.. Goddard commended that Mr.. Blake
was justified in not believing that Mar
| Mt
the latter's conduct was entirely 1ncon-
sistent with his having warrant, and
that the only reasonable explanation
of all this incident was that he did not
have a warrant. The government must
prove that he did have warrant and
if that is not proved the governments
case falls to the ground.
| If Mr.. Blake's request to see the war
rant was unreasonably refused, if then
he fed and if then Marshal Prescott
attempted to lay violent hands upon
him. his retaliation was not illegal. 1t
NAV have violated propriety, but it did
not violate the law.
The question is, if that arrest was ille-
gal. sand if so, he had right to resist
| such an arrest.
Gentlemen, this is an important case
important to Mr.. Blake because there is
a severe penalty for this offense, lmpor-
tant to the government, because the
| majesty and dignity of the law must
be sustained. But. gentlemen, the rights
and privileges of the private citizen
must also be maintained. Are people to
be arrested without warrants in the
night time, by strangers, who do not
show their authority? Remember that
the government owes protection to the
citizen, as much as the citizen owes
obedience to the government.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY BRADBURY.
| In his closing argument for the gov
eminent, District Attorney bradbury
first dwelt upon the peculiar feature of
this case that while in most cases of
violence it is the result of ignorance and
low habits of life, in this case the pris-