Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-10-12


the petition, existed in fact, and that
the petitioner was entitled to relief.
The record presents two alleged rec
ords of the Rockland Police Court in
search and seizure process, and a IL
bel and monition growing out Of the
same. The first record is that of the
recorder of that court who issued the
warrant and libel, assuming to act un-
der authority of the act creating that
court.
| The other record is furnished by the
Judge of that court. and is inconsist
ent with and in some respects a denial
of the truth of the record made by the
recorder, and counsel for the claimant
relies to great extent on the record
and statements of the Judge TO sustain
his contentious in both cases.
While it is the stated purpose of the
report to determine all matters in dis
pute In these cases, and the desire of
the court as we'll to end litigation, we
are confronted at the outset by a seri-
Gus challenge of the truth of the origi-
nal record, and the claimant presents
as a true record copies of a record
claimed to have been made by the
Judge of the same court which are at
|
| corder. and which, we must say, are
not with out fault, however erroneous
the acts or records of the recorder may
have been. We are not able with the
report before US to determine which is
the correct record, or if either is valid.
An inspection of the original papers,
and an examination CT the witnesses
involved would be necessary To a COM
llete understanding of the cases. and
meet the ends of justice if injustice
has heen done.
! Without passing further upon the
validity of the proceedings, we 90 find
however, a grave objection to the
maintenance Of the appeal, or the writ
of ccrtiorari. The claimant urges his
right to maintain both in The following
language:
And now comes Joseph Dondis, of
Rockland in said county, who says that
he is the agent and general manager
of the Knox County Bottling Works,
whose business is that /. bottlers of
soda, uno beer and what is known as
small beers, all non intoxicating, at
said Rockland and specifically claims
as said agent and general manager.
the right title and possession in the
items hereinafter named as having as
said agent and general manager a
right to the possession thereof at the
time when the same were seized And
the foundation of said claim is that
they were collected in from various
sources and places in the building of
said Knox County Bottling Works for
storage from which they were seized,
and that they were to be shipped when
further orders were obtained out of the
state to their real owners thereof, and
that in said capacity he had the right
to the possession thereof at the time
when the same were seized, and that
they were taken from his lawful pos
sessions on the 2sth day of March,
1912. from the frame building addi-
lions thereto. outbuildings and appur-
ltenances thereof occupied by said
Knox County Bottling Works as a
mandatory and storehouse, stated in
the libel as store, and situate on
the north side of Sea Street, in said
Rockland. by one Frank +. Harding.
City Marshal of said Rockland, and
this claimant declares that they were
not so kept or deposited for unlawful
sale as is alleged in the libel of said
Frank F. Harding and in the monition
issued thereon"
The claimant discloses no direct per-
sonal interest in the liquors in ques-
ton. He says he is the manager of the
Knox County Bttling Works, and as
such manager had the right to posses
sion of the liquors; that the liquors
were in storage awaiting the time
when, augmented by further orders
and collections, they should be ship
ped to their real owners outside the
state.
The statute establishing the right of
an owner to make claim for liquors under
seizure, and secure their release contem-
plated a case where the real owner
should appear, either personally. or by
properly authorized representative, and
make claim and produce proof sufficient
to satisfy the court having jurisdiction,
of the justice of his claim, and of his
lawful possession and ownership in fact
The claimant in this case does not
measure up to the requirements of the
statute. State VS.. Intoxicating Liquors,
50 Me 524, He is not such party in in
terest as the law contemplates, nor does
he show agency. He cannot prevail in
either contention. Levant, Petitioners
for Certiorari. VS.. County Commissioners.
g. Me. 429. State VS.. Intoxicating Liquors
Eastern Steamship Co. Claimant -
Me. July 9. 1914
The entry will therefore be,
Appeal dismissed. Writ quashed. Re-
ceived Oct. 9, 1914.