The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-11-01
THE DEERING CASE.
Ex-Oficer Yerrill Awarded $500 by
Jury.


Jury.
The Arguments of Counsel-Charge of
Judge Whitehouse--Some Talk of An
Appeal.
In the Supreme Court, before Judge
Whitehouse, on Saturday morning, were
begun the arguments in the case of Wads
worth Verrin against Mayor Henry j.
Davis and City Marshal Leander NJ.
Clark, of Deering. This case, which
began on Friday, arose out of an affair
Which occurred in Deering April 20, 1897,
when Mayor Davis and Marshal Clark
were trying to get from Verrill his equip
ments as a policeman. Messrs. X +.
Tompson and E. G. Reynolds were
counsel for Verrill; and Messrs. Soldiers
and Chase for the city officials.
The testimony having been concluded
Friday the arguments began Saturday
forenoon. Fred V. Chase, Esq. made the
argument for the defense.
Mr.. Chase began by saying that the
presumption in favor of the merit of that
suit. Counsel who bring suits, usually
have but one side of a story. The plain
tiff tells his side of the case, and the
counsel has no opportunity to understand
the truth or falsity until both sides are
heard. And he would undertake to say
that the counsel on the other side would
L.
they known the truth.
The burden of proof lay with the plain
tiff. He must show by preponderance
Now tine plaintiff claims that on the Goth
of last April the City Marshal and Mayor
committed an assault and battery and
falsly arrested the plaintiff. Now we ad-
init that if the marshal, with the in
struction of the mayor, arrested plaintiff
when they had no right to, they are gull
ty. But we show by our pleadings and
evidence that Mayor Davis gave no in
struotion for the arrest, and it is not
claimed by the plsinitff that he ever laid
a hand upon him. Therefore it is evil
dent that your verdict must of necessity
be mot guilty. as regards the Mayor.
AS to the Marshal, We show by unim-
peachable evidence that he arrested Yer
rlli for an assault, breach of the peace,
a felony. Even if there was technical
false arrest, the plaintiff condoned it by
requesting and consenting TO his dis
charge Mr. Chase cited cases in support
of this theory Of the law. He held that at
most damages should be purely nominal.
The defense denied absolutely any liza
ihlity on the part CT the Mayor unless he
ordered the Marshal to make this arrest
at VeTrill's house. But they had no fears
that it could be proved that the Mayor
gave any such order. Three disinterest-
ed witnesses prove the contrary The
arrest took place on Central avenue, after
Verrill had assaulted the Marshal and
broken his thumb. 1t is incumbent on an
officer to get a warrant so soon as he
can after his arrest. This Mayor Davis
and City Marshal Clark tried to co. They
went at once to Judge Hopkins, and
when the latter refused to issue a warrant
they released Verrill, with his consent
ana at his request
Mr. Chase said they did not propose to
try out the question whether or not
hadsworth Verri1l was a policeman OF
Deering, April 20, 1897. 1t mattered not
The mayor supposed that he had removed
him when he appointed q new list of
Ulcers. Whether he was policeman or
n It it was his duty to deliver his billy,
b age and handouts on written order OF
tie marshal.
But there was no intention of arresting
Verrill for not giving up those articles.
Judge Hopkins had expressly refused
them warrant for such p purpose And
do you suppose that Mayor Davis, whom
you have seen on the stand, would have
under such circumstances ordered this
man arrest? 1t is absurd.
What could make any man for a mo-
ment think that there was an arrest at
Verrills house? On the one side you have
only the discredited statement of VerrilI
supplement by few things heard by his
boarder. On the other side you have the
testimony OF. the mayor and marshal sup.
ported by Leander Leighton, Patrick
Lennon and young Mr.. Stevens VerrilI
says Marshal Clark took him by the arm
a I'd led him up Cherry street. That is
o ;pressly oontradicted by Mayor Davis,
ny Marshal Clark, by Greenville Pitt
Stevens. Which then is true? Verrin's
unsupported statement; or tho statement
OF these four? And it Is principle of law
that what is false in one thing may be
presumed to be false in all
Mr.. Chase then went on to speak of
Verrilfs previous character, especially of
his two convictions in the Portland
Municipal court, once for false measure
in charcoal and once for cruelty to ami
mails. 1t was a fair presumption that a
man who did not observe the laws of the
land might not tell the truth.
Mr.. Chase brought out the fact that
they took such q roundabout path on
leaving Verrill's house as strong sup
port OF his contention that there had not
EGnEra @Nz E.aru1