The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-11-01

| been arrest. Had he been arrested, WOulu
Marshal Clark have left him without
while he went into the houseP 1t looks
as though the plaintiff was trying TO pro-
woke an arrest, as he had in fact been ad-
vised to do.
There was no dispute about the arresg
on Central avenue. Verrill was arrested
for a criminal act. Verrill admits that
he took Clark by the hand, and we have
the evidence of the doctor that CLARK
| thumb was broken.
| In conclusion Mr. Chase contrasted
forcibly the characters of the plaintlH and
the defendants.
THE ARGUMENT FOR THE PLAIN
TIFF
was made by Mr.. Reynolds. He said thaU
they should confine themselves to facts.
Their contention was simple, that on the
2oth day of April, 1897, City Marshal
Clark, by order ofSMayor Davis, arrested
and locked up the plaintiff This was tne
story, and all there was of it. MIR. YER
rills testimony showed that Mayor Davis
directed Marshal Clark to arrest Verrlil
and that Clark thereupon stepped ONO 1,
the piazza, placed his hand on Verrlii
arm and arrested HIM. This testimony IS
positively corroborated by Mr.. George W.
Libby. They have tried to show tha6
A4pby Was u f0ldbIV0 OF NorILIi al
TO dlscredlt this important and conclusive
testimony. But they have been unable
to do it. He saw what he destined 70,
ana they cannot shake him. AS TO 0ne
way the parties walked when they "en6
| up Cherry street there was a slight Varla
ton in testimony but it was not import
amt 1T was not reasonable story tnab
| these three men were chasing AROUND bne
streets together that night unless Verriii
had been arrested. Was it not natural 10
believe that Verrill was less likely to get
up cause of controversy at such tlme
than his captors, who would wish TO geU
up some excuse to shield them from the
| results OF their ill-advised cause. In tEelr
| anxiety rather than In Verrill's was to De
Central avenue.
On Mayor Davis's alleged disinterested
connection with the case, MIR. Reynolds
commented foroibly by calling attention
TO The asS1duousness with which the may
or attended the marshal, finally going to
get the warrant. And when he found
Judge Hopkins and asked for the war
rant: he said he wanted it for the goods.
This mayor of Deering had thought Of
these equipments so long that he could
think OF nothing else. And when he
found that he could not get warrant for
that, he wanted it for assault.
AS to the point that the release was by
Verrlll's request, this rested entirely on
Marshal Clark's testimony. 1t was an
absurd contention considering Verrill's
Willingness to submit to arrest.
The testimony of City Solicitor Mat
theWs OF Deering was straight to the
effect that Clark had admitted that he
had arrested Verrill, and that the latter
was trying to escape when the scuffle oc-
CURED linen Mr. Matthews. senior, test
lied. They tried to cast a slur on this
witness because he is the father of the
city solicitor of Deering. Why, gentle
men, should think it an honor to be the
father of q son who appeared SO well on
the stand as did the city solicitor of
Deering. MIR. Matthews, senior, an
alderman of Deering, testified that he
told Clark he thought he had "put his
foot in it,
Mr.. Reynolds asked the jury for such
exemplary damages as would deter other
officers from arresting citizens wrong
fully and treating them with contumely
Mayor Davis had seemed to pattern
after Louis XIV, who had said be was
the State. 81 am the city, seemed to
not in accordance with the dignity of
mayor or the duty of a marshal to be
thus chasing about for an old pair of
handouts and billy.
The mayor and marshal had tried to
defend themselves by aspersing the char
.sCJCT VI bllS Anu now MAD En6y
done it? Why, they say that seventeen
years ago Wadsworth Verrill, in the en-
ployment of somebody, went into the
Municipal court and paid small fine for
selling somebody else's charcoal in q
small basket.
MIR. Reynolds then went on forcibly to
picture the wrong and indignity done
his client by his arrest and confinement.
He was deprived of his liberty and privi-
leges without process of law. Gentle
man, what will you do with it? I be-
lieve you will try to right this wrong SO
far as you can.
Judge Whitehouse, in the
CHARGE TO THE JURY,
called attention to the fact that the ooun-
sci were the interested parties, while the
jury were the disinterested parties. The
judge then gave resume OF the conten-
lions Of the two sides. The personal
liberty of the citizen was contingent up
on his observance of the rights of Others
1t was not denied that this defendant
was for time deprived of his liberty
The defendants claim that this detention
was justified. The plaintiff denies it.
The controversy was over a badge, billy
and other accoutrements of policeman
They were equipments, but in this cause
seemto have been the trappipgs and the
suits of woe.
Judge Whitehouse then spoke of the ap-
pofntment of the policeman, and said it
did not seem important to determine
whether or not Verrill had been removed.
After reviewing the circumstances that
occurred on the evening of April 20, and