The Republican journal., 1905-05-18

In all our land, from shore to shore, there's
room for none beside.
-Silas S. Holbrook, in the Brunswick Rec
ord.
ENFORCEMENT III WALDO COUNTY.
Review of the Disposition of Liquor
Cases at the April Term of the S. 7.
Court
In another column the disposition of the
liquor cases at the April term of Court is
published by the Clerk of Courts, as the
law requires. Some general statements of
facts in Court procedure in general, and
some definite statements relating to this
particular term, may be of interest to the
public.
When an officer makes a seizure of Ii
Quors, the person in whose possession he
finds them is arraigned for trial before the
Judge or Justice who issued the warrant on
complaint of the officer or a private citizen.
The search and seizure cases disposed of
at the April term, the disposition of which
is reported in another column, all came be-
fore Judge R. W. Rogers of the Police
Court of Belfast, and the sentence in each
case was, 500 and costs and sixty days in
Jail, and in default of fine and costs, sixty
days additional in Jail In each of the cases
the parties convicted appealed, as was their
legal right, to the following term of the Su-
preme Judicial Court, and gave bonds for
their appearance there in the sum of $500.
If they fail to appear-as they did in cases
numbered 523, 524, 531, 532, 554, 561, 562, 566,
ST., ISL, So, 5S3, $40, at the last term of
Court-the bonds may, on the motion of the
County Attorney, be defaulted in each case,
and collected in civil suit, and also on his
motion the sentence given in the lower
court may be affirmed in each case so that,
soon as the sheriff could have located the
parties, they would have been committed to
Jail. But such action was not taken. The
procedure in the single sale cases, for ex-
ample No. 562, is the same.
Now if the respondent appears in the Su-
preme judicial Court, his case may be dis
posed of in one of the following Ways
LIST. Mol pressed by the County Attorney,
as in case No. 5SS.
end. Continued for trial at some future
term of Court, as in case No. 500.
3rd. The defendant may file demurrer;
that is to say, he acknowledges himself to
be guilty of the charges that are we'll set
forth, but denies that they constitute the
crime with which he is charged The de-
murrer may be, as it usually is, overrued
by the Judge and then, as is his legal right,
the accused may file exceptions to the over
ruling of the Judge, and this sends it to the
full Bench or Law Court for determination.
This method is well illustrated by case No
$50 Liquor cases which go to the Law
Court, are almost without exception return
ed, Judgment for the State, and are ready
for sentence at the next term of Court.
4th. The case may be tried by jury, and
if the verdict is mot guilty." as in case No.
6Oi, that settles it forever. But if the YER
dict is "guilty,' as in case No. 525, then
motion to arrest Judgment may be filed, and
if the Judge overrules, as he usually does,
then exceptions may be taken to his ruling
and the case goes to the Law Court.
5th. The respondent may plead guilty,
and then his case would be ready for SEN
tence.
THE SENTENCES.
The criminal law was so changed by the
last Legislature that now even though a
case may go to the Law Court by process
be opposed at the time, but the execution of
that sentence is stayed pending the decision
of the Law Court. Under this present law,
Mr.. W. S. Edminster was fined in six cases
as fOllOWs:-
No. 527. 800 and costs, and thirty days in
Jail.
No. 52S, sixty days in jail
No. $40, 800 and costs, and sixty days in
Jail.
No. 594, $50 and costs ------
No. Cos, 500 and costs, and thirty DAYS in
Jail.
No. Cos, ------ sixty days in jail
In default of fine and costs the Jail SEN
tence is doubled in each case Now if all
these cases come back from the Law Court
at the same time, as is natural they should,
fr1Gr ,nr,f fDr t,,c tntn
such cases, it would look to the average
reader that Mr.. Edminster would have to
pay $3.50 and costs, amounting to at least
$50 more and to go to Jail two hundred and
forty days; but that is not to be the case,
for Chief Justice Wiswell explained, when
he imposed the sentences, that the Jail SEN
fences were to run concurrently; that is,
while he is serving the sixty days sentence
in No. $40, he is serving the Jail sentence in
each of the other cases at the same time.
So that the practical result will be the same
as if No. $40 had been the only case in which
same as though no sentence whatever had
been given in Nos 6OS and 528 The labor
of officials and the expense to the County in
securing those two convictions was to no
purpose whatever, and had there been
greater number of convictions against him
it is plain to see that the labor and cost of
obtaining them would have been in vain
Mr.. l.. L. Gentner was sentenced in six
cases, as will be seen, with the same cOndi-
ton of concurrent Jail sentences, and with
the same result, so that the faithful, hard
work Of citizens and officers in securing
convictions in two cases met with no prac-
teal results whatever, and the County pays
the bills. The same condition and like
practical results obtained in the three cases
in which Mr.. Fred NJ. Staples was SEN
fenced The well known 'Bangor plan"
was to lump all offenses against the Prohib,
itory Law and impose a fine of 800 and
costs, usually amounting to $40 But here
we see the principle. of the Bangor plan"
applied to Jail sentences, Jumping many
| into one, the practical result of which is to
pardon in all cases except one, or the same
as if only one had been brought. Hereto
fore when several sentences have been i'm
posed at the same term of Court, they have
been so imposed that one ne jail sentence nee
example: If three sentences of sixty days
each were imposed, the second would be
stated to begin at the expiration of the first,
and the third at the expiration of the sec
ond, making the full penalty one hundred