Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-01-19

| (Spaulding) had written the county at
torney letter prefefring a charg
against him. Spaulding was fined $40
and costs or four months in Jail On al
indictment for maintaining a liquo
nuisance found at this term of court.
Upon fixing the sentence Judge Hal
said: y
1T is not for me to determine in thi:
case whether this respondent is guilty
or not guilty. but simply to fix the
sentence under the Indictment to which
he has plead guilty virtually.
THAT there has been a violation Of
the law under this indictment, there i.
no question; the only question for mt
to determine under all the circum
stances of the case is what penalty
would answer the ends of justice
understand from his counsel that he is
now ready to assure the court thai
from this time forward there shall b.
no violation of the liquor law. There
are two indictments still pending, one
of which is a liquor nuisance which
gives me unlimited power as to the pen.
atty up TO the sum of $1000 or impris-
onment for a year. This indictment
will remain on the files of this court fol-
future enforcement in case of violation
OF his promise.
1.-THE object of the law is to deter men
from violating it, and the object OF
penalties-and here is an opportunity tc
see how far he Intends to keep faith
with the court. There has been a vio-
lation of the law, however, under this
Indictment which 1 cannot overlook
HOY ref "a oh nd do,
all the circumstances / make the penal
ty one-half of what has been the usual
penalty under a liquor nuisance-with
the understanding that he stops the
business henceforth.,
Nov, when the question of sentence
in these cases was being heard yester-
day, the respondent made Il statement
in which he charged that the county
attorney had singled him out for prose-
cution and punishment beyond others
Of his class OF violators in this county.
and he alleged as a cause for it that the
county attorney had taken offence at a
letter which the respondent had sent
him, containing IAN aaccusatinnz against
him.
"Since the hearing this letter has
been shown to me. 1t was written soon
after proceedings had been begun
against the respondent for violation of
the liquor law, and can be construed in
no other way than as an attempt to in
timidate the county attorney in the
prosecution Of his official duty.
ITO add to his offence the respondent
it aprears-although did not quite get
mis- naming at the time-he substantial
i,r TO- I,A inr, tn,
court in the course of his statement,
yesterday, by stating what he had
written to the county attorney.
Notwithstanding the covert threat
Of the letter of the respondent. ! can
not see that the county attorney has
swerved one iota from the performance
of his duty, and is to be commended for
treating the letter with silent con-
tempt; and further for taking no notice
Of the allusion to it by the respondent
in court.
Il feel il my duty, however, to notice
it, and not only to vindicate a faithful
and most efficient officer of this court
and Of the people. and to emphatically
rebuke SO palpable, though futile, at
tempt to intimidate him. The covert
intention of the letter was made ap-
parent by the statement in court, which
makes this censure of the respondent
necessary as if an attempt to obstruct
the administration of justice"
An unusual petition for divorce is or
the docket for hearing at this term
of the court. The libellant is Elmer
H. Heald of Hallowell and the libellee
Lillian Heald of Augusta. The writ
states that the libellant was born, Jan
70, 1883, and is now of the age of 19
years and no more; that on the 22d
day Of November. A. d. 1902, one Lii
liam Mullen caused notice of the in
tention of marriage between herself and
your petitioner to be recorded in the
Office of the city clerk of the city OF
Augusta: that she represented to said
clerk that she was q years of age and
also a resident of Augusta; that said
representations were false and fraudu-
lent in that your petitioner was only
~ years of age and that he then hat
his residence, as it always had been
in the city of Hallowell and not IL
the city of Augusta; that on the 26tf
day of said November she procured
from said city clerk by false represen-
tations said certificate of punishment
and on the said day a ceremony O.
marriage between said parties was per.
| formed by the Rev George F. Deger
of Augusta; that Your petitioner be
lieved before, said marriage that tn,
| libellee had never been married, and
relying upon said belief, he permitted
| said marriage to be performed; h
ayers that he has been greatly de
ceiXed NSthe SANG tfak<he has beer
ind fmedsand poW believes, that sh'
| has been married. before; wherefore
your petitioner prays that the bond
of matrimony now existing, may b
severed. the marriage annulled, and ;
| legal separation decreed.
Beane & Beane of Hallowell, are en-
tered as counsel for the libellant. an,
| Sheldon & Sawtelle of Augusta for tn
| libellee.
Other divorce cases on the docket TO
consideration at this term of the cour
are as follows.
! Helen F. Kimball of Winthrop VS.
George E. Kimball of Detroit, Mich
for desertion and three years utter de
sertion prior to the filing of the libe
Leroy T. Carleton of Winthrop, TO
the libellant.
James r. Norton vs. Christiana Z
Norton. both of Readfield. for adulter,