Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-11-02

Ding places in Augusta. The article
| IS 50 mi Slcading. its miS-StatcmentS 50
numerous and its c0ncllisionS~S 50 false
that reply seems necessary in the
interest Of justice, ana especially tn
myself.
Dor the three warrants YOU men,
| ton there Yves seized tie following
property: IL billiard and pool tables,
10 chairs, certain showcases, IL cast,
register. Z quantity of cigars and to-
bac"" and Il large number Of billiard
balls and Goes. The value OF all which
property was shown t. be from $1,000
TO 5000. It having been all ordered
destroyed by the judge OF the munich
pal court an appeal was taken TO the
superior court where. the appellants
having pleaded nolo contendere the
only question as to them for the court,
was the penalty to be inflicted Tor
Il epiag gambling places. The statute
prov ideS for a fine of any sum not to
exceed 500. a statute also provides
that the court may require. in ottenses
not punishable by imprisonment in
state prison, recognizance With
suretieS in Il reasonable sum binding
tie respondent to keep the peace and
be of good behavior for term Of not
exceeding two wears.
This was Il hrSt OffenSe of these
men. ana | feel that / did not err on
the side of leniency when | sentenced
them to pay tie costs which We're
heavy and required each to recognize
with sufficient SuretieS in the sum of
sl0o3 rs provided by the statute.
Then arose the question OF what dis
position should be made of the prop
erty which had been seized. You say
in your article. Yet Judge Hall in
direct violation of a plain law. ordered
the gambling implements restored to
.h"ir ov nerS. when the law says he
shall order them destroyed" | beg
to take direct issue with YOU as to any
violation of law. and as to what the
Ia u sa"s." You evidently have no
know ledge Of the facts. Or if YOU had
perhaps it would make little differ
cnct with Your conclusion as to the
enornity "f restoring this property
to the owners. True. the men. in
whose possession the things were
found. We're charged with keeping
gambling houses and the property
found in their possession was very
properly ordered to be seized. This
the statute requires for evidence. but
before court can legally order it
burned or otherwise Destroyer there
must be allegation and proof that it
consisted of articles used for gambling
or that they Wer" implements ur ap-
Daratus for gambling. because lay the
law of 1909 no other property seized in
a gambling room can legally be de
str"ycd. You OF course do not con
tend that the ch;,irs. furniture, Show
cases. cash register tobacco and d
CARS seized We're subject to be burned
or otherwise destroyed? Or do YOU
think they should have been.
Now there was a perfectly conclu-
siv@ reason Why | could not legally
order the articles DESTROYED The rea-
son is 50 patent on the record that it
does not require a LAWYER to discover
it. This reason is a legal one, but
do not think this the place or coca
SIGN t" discuss it. If you will ask
any LAWYER in the county or state to
eXamine the papers am confident
that his opinion win coincide with
mine that no order could legally have
been made to destroy a single article
seized under the proceedings result
in: II the appeals
The county attorney recognizing the
d' feet did not ask for any Judgment
against the property and advised IT.
RESTORATION as tire Only thing that was
rrcorc sent up.
GU say truly that lit is not the
province of the court to protect law.
less men Neither is it the province
OF tie court to deprive any man OF
his PROPERTY without que process of
law, There was also another perfect
ly conclusive reason to my mind WHY
this property should not u" ordered
destroyed, 1t is a question upon
which | exercised my right of iudg-
ment. 1t Mas and is my opinion that
ire statute under which these pro-
ceedlnss were had does not necrssari-
~ include billiard and pool tables in
the term gambling implements or APP
paratuS There is a special statute
iroNldlnS penalty and Forfeiture OF
nc. nSe and the licensees bond for per
uniting gambling on such tables. That
statute does not. declare a forfeiture
or destruction Of the tables. The
statute providing for the destruction
OF Sdinhilng apparatus and imple-
i!ei!tS does not III my judgment in
cutie THESE n"ceSSarily. The law pro-
N'dcS Tor the seizure of all personal
property in a gambling place. but it
requires the destruction of gambling
implements "r implements us,G FOR |