The Portland daily press., 1898-04-18
VERDICT FOR PRINCE.
Jury Says Ex-Cty Marshal Clark Must
Pay 500.

dy %sUO.
The evidence for the defence, in the suit
of Willis Prince against ex-City Marshal
Clark of Deering in the Supreme COURT
was resumed Saturday morning.
Wyer P. Aver, an alderman of the city
of Deering for 1897, testified that ne was
present at the city meeting OF April Sth,
when the matter OF the commitment OF
the plaintiffs wife to the insane asylum
was considered He testified that the
mayor then informed the plaintiff that
thew would have to commit his, plaintiff S
wife: that Prince got up and started
towards the door, and turned around and
shook his fist at them and said, ''If you
take her you will have to take her over
nv dead body" and then went out and
slammed the door.
Edwin r. Brown, the present city
marshal, testified that he was policeman
of the city in 1897; that he was at the
station at about seven O'Clock on the
evening of the arrest, that he went away
cell, and Mr.. Clark was sitting in a
chair. After while Prince asked MIR.
Clark to let him out as he wanted to go
home, and Mr.. Clark said he didn't know
about letting him out; that he, plaintiff,
had used threatening language toward
him, Clark. and he didn't know about let
ting him go. They talked back and forth a
while. when Clark said, eff you will
sign paper not to make anymore trouble
for me, I will let you out" and Mr..
Priuce agreed to this. The witness further
testified that, prior to the occurrence at
the station, he had heard Prince make
threats towards Mr.. CLARK, which threats
he had communicated to the marshal.
Freeman Gowen testified that he was
member of the board of aldermen of Deer
ing in 1897, and was present at the meet
ing OF April 9th; that Mr.. Prince was
there, and that at the close of the hearing
when Prince got up to go, he, Prince,
opened the door and turned around and
said, Gentlemen, want you to distinct.
ly understand if this woman is taken out
of my house tomorrow morning, she will
have to be taken out over my dead body"
On cross examination, il answer to the
question as to whether the hearing was
had upon the matter without any petition
signed by a justice of the peace or a rela-
tive of the insane person, the witness said
that he supposed everything was all
straight and right, as usual; those mat
ters were left to the city clerk; he did not
look the papers over himself.
Counsel for the defense introduced ex-
tracts from the city records relating to
the appointment and qualification of Mr.
Clark as city marshal, and also section 3
OF the city ordinances relating TO the
duties OF police, and also placed in evil
dence the deposition Of Miss Rose E.
k1ttrldge, daughter of the plaintiffs
wife.
In rebuttal, City Clerk Jones was re-
called and testified that he was present at
the city meeting of April 9th; that he
saw the plaintiff when he left but did
not hear him make the statement that if
his wife was taken from his house she
would have to be taken over his dead
body. Witness said that he may have
been absent from the room for few
moments at times, but thought he was
there when the plaintiff left
Officer Frank Mountfort was recalled
and testified, as bearing upon the testi-
mony of Officer Ilsley, that that officer
plaintiff into the cell very quick-had
chucked him in head over heels.
Mr.. Seiders proceeded to sum up the
case for the defense, and was followed by
Gen. Mattocks in behalf of the plaintiff.
The court then submitted the case to
the jury, instructing them, as matter of
law, that the evidence in the case did not
show justification for the arrest, and
that there was no waiver on the part of
the plaintiff of his right to recover dam
ages. The only question remaining,
therefore, was that of the amount Of
damages to be assessed.
After being out about two hours the
jury returned verdict for the plaintiff
for s7Oo.
Following the suit of Mr.. Prince. the
trial of the case of Charles 7. Garland
VS.. Portland & Rochester railroad was
begun. This is an action to recover $1,000
for personal injuries claimed to have
been sustained through the alleged
negligence of the defendant company.
The plaintiff, blacksmith residing in
Westbrook, introduced evidence to show
that early on the morning of December 3,
1896, while crossing Mechanic street, on
his way to his work, he was struck by an
express car that had been detached from
train and was being shunted onto a
siding; that he was knocked down, his
right arm and shoulder and his back and
hip were badly bruised and sprained, and
that he was disabled for a period of
several weeks. and that he has not entire
ly recovered from the effects of his in
juries.
The defense contends that the shunting
of the car onto the siding was attended
with due care, and that the accident to
the plaintiff was due to his own negli-
gence.
The plaintiffs side of the case is closed.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Perrys opening
statement for the defense the court adj
Journed to Monday morning at half past
nine.
William Lyons for plaintiff Messrs.
N. q ii. b. Cleaves for the defendant
LITTLE GIRL HURT.
llZZl6 FLANAGAN IL voarc old xpbN v;uo,