Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-08-26
A new RULING
In Liquor Cases Made by Judge
Str0ut at Portland.
Cannot Fine Persons for Merely Hav-
ing Liquor in Possession.
Officers Say They will Therefore Proceed on
Nuisance Charges.

Portland. Nc. Aug. "a hole i'm
saturday. by Judge Strout Of the SUI
premc court. During Sheriff Pearson's
enforcement of the law it has been the
practice. on charges Of having in their
possession Intoxicating liquors intend
ties whom the prosecuting officers
feared they could not convict on
search and seizure process. In many
instances respondents in liquor cases
who We're intending to contest search
and seizure. the penalty for conviction
in which is 800 and costs. have been
glad to compromise by pleading gull
ty to warrants charging them with
possession. thus escaping with fines Of
$40 and costs.
James A. Comedian. a Portland at
torney. raised the point that the NUM-
cipal court judge had no authority to
impose a fine of $40 and costs in such
cases The point was debated. today.
in a chambers hearing before Judge
Strout on writ of habeas corpus. Ed
warn D. WHO EdS
pay a fine of so and costs imposed on
conviction for having liquors in his
possession and intending them foI sale,
was the person whose case was put to
the test. His counsel argued that the
statutes did not make a separate Of
fence of having intoxicating liquors
in possession" that the only warrant
to issue in such cases was a search
and seizure" and the only fine that
could be imposed was 800 and costs
Assistant County Attorney Scott
Wilson argued that the respondent had
not suffered hardship by being fined
the lesser amount: that the Lcgisla-
ture never intended habcas corpus pro-
ceedinEs to apply to such cases He
said that if the kind of warrant in
question could not be issued, the en-
forcement Of the prohibitory law would
be seriously crippled. There were
numerous cases of this sort pending.
on appeal to the superior court, and if
habeas corpus held in this case these
cases would be lost.
Then Judge Strout said that if the
only question involved was that of the
extent of punishment. the respondents
the law provided. he would not inter-
fere. but he was satisfied that the war
rant was void. and that that statute
did not define such an offence as had
been alleged in Curran's case.
The attorney for the State wanted
the court to rule that n writ of error.
rather than habcas corpus writ. would
be the proper method of procedure.
thus allowing the question of law to be
carried up to the full bench but Judge
Strout replied that he was convinced
that the form of warrant on which
Curran had been arrested was entirely
unauthorized. and he discharged the
respondent.
Currans liberty was brief. for he had
hardly left the judges chamber when
a nuisance warrant was served on him.
a hearing.
Charles A. Plummcr. the chief mem
Der of Sheriff Pearson's force of liquor
deputies. was asked what. in his opin-
ion, would be the effect of Judge
Strout's decision. The officer replied:
1T may bother us some. but it is
likely to bother the rumSellers more.
Every man whom the lawyers clear on
habeas corpus proceedings we will ar
rest on nuisance charge. | think
that Lawyer Comedians move will. in
the end. prove to he bad for the liquor
men. for IL we cannot hold them on
seizure warrants we shall try the nuiS-
ance charge"