Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-12-11
THE LAW COURT.
Arguments in Case Of State vs.,
William Henry.
Counsel for Defendant Claims Jury's
Verdict Was Defective.
No New Trials in Liquor Gases of
Douglass and Wolman.

! heard the case Oh oldte VS.. William
Henry of Whitefield, on a motion for
arrest of judgment. Henry was in
dicted by the grand jury at the Sep
TENDER term of the Kennebec county
superior court of assault with intent
to kill and slay William G. Casey witt
a knife, July - last AT the trial
Henry was defended by Benedict r.
Maher, Esq, and Sheldon & Sawtele
of Augusta. Henry was convicted of
assault and battery with a dangerous
| weapon.
| George C. Sheldon, Esq, argued as
follows in favor of his motion for ar
rest of judgment:
1.-The respondent was indicted under
| Chapter. 11S. Section 25, Revised Stat
utes of Maine, for assault, armed with
a dangerous weapon, with intent to
kill. 1t was competent for the jury
to find the respondent guilty, as
| charged in the Indictment. to wit,
guilty of assault, armed with a dam
aerous weapon, with intent to kill, or
of the lesser offence, averred in the
| indictment, to wit simple assault.
These two verdicts are the only ones,
competent and legal, for the offence,
as charged in the indictment. The
jury, however, evidently found the re-
spondent guilty of the offence defined
| in Section % OF the same chapter, to
wit, assault and battery, or rather in
tended to find him guilty under Sec
| ton % aforesaid, but this section de-
| fines but one offence, to wit, in addi-
| ton to assault and battery. This lat
ter offence is assault and battery,
| nothing more and nothing less, with
out qualification, addition or descrip-
| ton. The verdict rendered was not
guilty as charged in the indictment, to
| wit, assault armed with a dangerous
weapon with intent to kill. 1t was
| not, guilty of the lesser offence, con-
| tanned i'm the indictment, to wit, simple
| assault. 1t was not, guilty under Sec
| ton %, to wit, assault and battery,
but the verdict as actually rendered
and recorded, was in language as fol-
| lows: to wit, assault and battery with
a dangerous weapon.
THE verdict as rendered and record
! ed was defective, Illegal, and wrong,
| for two reasons: First there was a
fatal variance between the indictment
and the verdict. The indictment did
y
the respondent guilty among other
things of battery. 1t is competent,
| under an Indictment for assault with
intent to kill. to find the respondent
guilty of assault and battery, where
battery is charged in the Indictment,
there can be no conviction for battery;
second, the verdict as rendered is not
known to the statutes of this State
nor to the common law. There is no
such crime as assault and battery,
with dangerous weapon.
THE addition of the words with
| dangerous weapon is not surplusage
but it is materially descriptive matter
and thereby defines and names a crime
unknown to the law. If the court
holds that the verdict in this case is
really simple assault, and that the
other words, and battery with dan
gerous weapon are merely surplusage
and redundancy, then it is the province
of the court to so define this verdict,
as simple assault, and nothing more,
50 that it may be determined for what
| offence sentence is to be pronounced"
County Attorney Leigh opposed the
motion of Attorney Sheldon. Mr..
J Leigh contended that he did not be-
| lieVe that the court would reach the
| question whether or not the verdict
was legal verdict under the indict-
| ment, but claimed that a motion for
| arrest of judgment such as was filed
! in this case did not lie and quoted a
decision by the Maine court in the
18th Maine Report which he commended
was applicable to this case.
Entries We're made, Thursday, Eek
| ceptions overrued for want of prose-
cution, judgment for the State" in
the liquor cases against Charles II.
Douglass and Carl Wolmon, two Gar
diner hotel proprietors. At the Septem-
Der term of the superior court, Doug
lass was convicted on three cases, one
| each for liquor nuisance, common sell
Ter and maintaining drinking
house and tipping shop, and
| Wolmon on two cases. liquor
nuisance and common seller Their
| counsel filed exceptions and car
ried the cases to the law court Doug
lass was defended by Fred Emery
Beane, Esq, of Hallowell, and Wolmon
by Sheldon & Sawtelle of Augusta. The
| disposition of these cases make Doug
lass and Wolmon in line for sentence at
the January term of the superior court.
Kennebec and Knox county cases
| were argued at Thursdays session.
The Knox county cases on the docket
| were as follows: Beal VS.. Bryant ct
ais; Butler VS.. Rockand, Thoma ston
6, Camden Street Railway Company;
Moran administrator VS.. Rockland
Thomaston & Camden Street Railway
Company: Munro VS.. Barton; Robinson
VS.. Rockland. Thomaston &. Camden
Street Railway Company; Shepard VS.
Piper; Thomas petitioner VS.. Thomas;
White VS.. Matthews; Whitney VS.
johnson; Wood appellant from decree
of Judge of probate; Bowden VS.. Derby
Briggs VS.. Smith ct ais; Caven, admin
istratrix vs.. Bodwell Granite Com
pany: Clark vs. Rockland. Thomaston
&, Camden Street Railway Company
Rockland VS.. Inhabitants of Union;
Rollins VS.. Bennett: Shepard Company
VS.. Shibles: State VS.. Gates; State VS.
Dodwell: State VS.. Dodwell: State VS.
Grant: State VS.. Grant: Timer VS.
| ,.c