Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-07-20

he ClOSeQ Win the statement that ne
was practically certain that no one
connected with the police department
of the city Of Gardiner was in any way
connected with the removal of the evil
dence. Attorney Nelson made no plea.
Judges Decision
Judge Atkins reserved his decision
until o'clock in the afternoon. In Civ
ing his decision he said:
The case now before the court for
determination presents some new and
to me interesting points. Briefly stat
ed, on Saturday night last, several
deputy sheriffs of this county, called
at the place Of business Of Mr.. Nc
Donald and made search with warrant,
for intoxicating liquors. The return up
on the warrant states that they seized
by virtue Of that warrant, two cases
of Sterling Ale.' AS one Of the deputies
entered the rear room, he saw the pro-
prietor take case Of ale and run W.
the back stairs and hide the same. He
covered the proprietor with his search
light at the time, saw where he placed
the case, and then went and found it..
The other case was taken from the
ice box. The bottles We're labelled.
Sterling Ale.' The proprietor was di-
rected to present himself in court on
Monday morning to answer to the
complaint of search and seizure and
the two cases were taken to the Gar
diner police station for safe keeping.
Mr.. Blaisdell, who was at that time in
the station, was asked if the deputies
might put the liquors in one of the
cells for safety until Monday. He re-
piled in the affirmative and the two
cases were placed in cell and the
door locked by Officer Blaisdell. This
was somewhere in the vicinity of 3 or
$50 in the evening. The officers We're
in and out about the place from that
time until 1890. Sometime between
1870 and morning Sunday, the two
cases disappeared from cell 4. No evil
dence has been introduced to show
how or by whom the liquors were re-
moved. From my point of view, now
ever, l can conceive of no person VINO
would have any real reason for their
removal except the respondent. Inc
fact that the respondent first attempt
ed TO hide the one case in his place OF
business. leads me to believe that the
contents were Intoxicating. and their
subsequent departure from the police
station, is additional proof of their ma
ture. | am aware as has been ingen-
iousiy argued by counsel, that some Of
our decisions say that both the re-
spondent and the liquors seized must
be produced in court. l believe this to
be good law generally speaking, but
where the evidence is made way with
b. the respondent or someone in his
employ, simply to escape conviction,
cannot think that the court intended
that he should evade the penalty by
such a course. Two wrongs do not
make one right in my Judgment. 1t
may be that the court above may not
take my view of the situation. That
does not matter. The respondent has
the right OF appeal and the State does
not / must be fair with both. | shall
consequently find the respondent guilty
and impose a fine Of 500 and costs and
60 days in Jail, and in default OF pay
ment Of fine and costs. 60 days addi-
tional In justice to the officers |
might add. that 1 believe the liquors
were taken away without their knoN'-
edge or assistance ! can imagine no
officer weak enough mentally to do or
allow such a manifest indiscretion if
he knew it,