The Portland daily press., 1897-11-03

Testimony in behring's Controversy
Reviewed.
Several of the prominent citizens of
Deering who sat through the trial of .ex-
Policeman Wordsworth Verrill's false i'm
prisonment suit against Mayor Henry }.
Davis and City Marshal Leander Clark,
in the Supreme court, last week, were
there again yesterday, in attendance at
the hearing on the defendants motion
for a setting aside of the verdict.
Instead of taking the matter directly to
the Law court, as might have done,
Messrs. Soldiers & Chase, counsel for the
defendants, preferred to leave the matter
to the discretion of the presiding justice
before whom the cause was tried. Judge
Whitehouse remarked before the argu-
ments were begun, that he would have
preferred that the matter come before the
full bench as the responsibility seemed
greater under the present arrangement;
however, he was willing to abide by the
choice of the parties in the case.
In beginning his argument in favor of
the motion, Mr.. Seiders said the surprise
to the respondents when the verdict of
5000 was rendered was volcanic in it's
vastness. The claim of the defense is that
| the verdict should be set aside, first, be-
cause it was at variance with the charge
of the presiding justice; second, because
it was against the evidence; third. be-
cause it was against the weight of evil
dence; fourth, because the damages
awarded were excessive. He had antici
pated that the jury would declare one of
the defendants guilty. but he did not see
how, taking the whole evidence under
consideration, the jurors could have de-
cided that Mayor Davis was guilty of the
offense
Mayor Davis" continued Mr.. Seiders,
is man of consequence and standing;
a positive man. whose enemies, even, will
admit that he is steadfast, careful and
honest, and his word entitled to the ut
most credence. Marshal Clark is not as
well known, but he evidently has the re-
spect of the community. else his appoint
mentsas head of the police department. in
the city of Deering would not have been
| confirmed by the board of aldermen
| Then Mr.. Soldiers reviewed the evil
dence in the case, and retold the story of
Policeman Verrill's drop from the police
force, Marshal Clark attempt to induce
him to turn in his equipments, and the
part Mayor Davis took in assisting the
marshal in his endeavor.
| He claimed that the action of the mayor
urcIa1 ,,,I
fair; that they were perfectly honest in
| their attempt to recover the city's goods
which Verrill was Withholding. He ar
gued that they did not go to Verrill's
house with any intention of arresting
him, and that the arrest did not take
place till they reached Central avenue,
where Verrill seized the marshals hand
and. broke his thumb. The plaintiff had
claimed that when he went up Oak and
Cherry streets the marshal had hold of
one arm and the mayor the other; but the
testimony of the two defendants, which
is corroborated by disinterested witnesses
is that the mayor was walking beside the
plaintiff, but had no hold of him, and
| that the city marshal was twenty five
feet behind.
Mr.. Soldiers added that the only person
on whom marks of violence were left was
Marshal Clark. There is no claim that
the plaintiff was roughly or Indignantly
used on the way-to Jail. Coming to
consideration of the police station scene,
Mr.. Seiders- said after Verrill was locked
up Mayor Davis started out after war
rant. He didn't know it was writ of
replevin that was wanted; he didn't
know any more than child what a writ
of replevin was. So he asked for a war
rant charging Verrill with assaulting the
marshal. When he returned to the police
station with the information that he could
not procure warrant, Marshal Clark did
the best possible thing; he liberated the
prisoner, thereby covering every provision
of the statutes and saving himself from
any claim for false imprisonment.
Considering the claim that the verdict
was excessive, Mr.. Seiders said it ap-
peared in testimony that Marshal Clark
has property worth from $1,000 to $500,
and the mayor has property worth $3.50,
on which there is q mortgage of $1,000.
The verdict of 5000 does not give evidence
that the jury took into sufficient con-
sideration the question of the defendants
ability to pay Some members of the jury
evidently set figure way up, and others
not as much. The amount determined
upon would equal about one-fourth the
entire property of the defendants. Com
pairing the verdict in this case with the
$3.50 verdict in the case of Palmer against
the Maine Central railroad, he said had
the latter verdict been in proportion with
this one the jury might have found a
verdict of $25O,O0O against the railroad
company.
Continuing. Mr.. Soldiers said there were
reasons for the verdict; reasons which
did not rightfully enter into the case, and
which he would not now discuss. AS to
the question. of jury to the plaintiff, he
said $500 is more than Verrill ever had in
his possession at one time, and more
than he would be likely to earn in two