Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-01-25
SUPERIOR court
Harry Soubek Gets IL Months
In Jail for Assault with Dan
gerous Weapon with
Intent to Kill


cases and another case was COM
menced at Saturdays session Of the
superior court, the two cases which
were completed being No. 81, State VS..
Harry Soubek of Winslow for assault
with a dangerous weapon with intent
to kill. in which the jury rendered a
verdict Of guilty, and No. AZ, State VS..
Jacob Brisk and Rachel Brisk of Wa
terville for larceny, in which a verdict
Of guilty was pronounced. Case No.
81. State VS.. Napoleon Landry of Wa
terville for common nuisance was
opened near the close of the afternoon
session, and will be resumed this
morning.
Court opened at $50 A. NJ. when the
case Of State VS.. Harry Soubek was
resumed. NJ. Z. Sawtelle, the attorney
for the defendant, made his plea to
the jury, emphasizing the fact that the
motive must be considered by the jury
and stating that if Soubek did not in
tend to kill Tony Sport he was not
guilty of the Indictment.
County Attorney, W. Fisher in his
plea to the jury stated that Soubek
might be guilty of either an assault
or an assault with intent to kill. He
then reviewed the testimony that had
been given.
Judge Beane then charged the jury
and the jurors retired at 1890 o'clock
to decide upon the case. returning at
1l.45 with verdict, guilty. Judge
to-, Ia,
imprisoned in jail at labor for a term
of II months.
The next case to be opened was that
OF State VS.. Jacob and Rachel Brisk
Of Waterville for larceny. They ha /
previously entered the plea of not
guilty. F. w. Clair Of Waterville was
counsel for the defendants. In open
ing the case County Attorney Fisher
stated that Mr.. and Mrs. Brisk was
charged with the larceny of a promis-
sorry note. The story runs like this
Or. Goodrich of Waterville had a claim
against the Brisks about Oct 81, 1915
and c. w. Hussey, attorney, held the
claim. Mrs. Brisk signed a promis-
sorry note and it was understood tina
Mr. Brisk would sign. But when NJ,
Brisk came to the office of Mr. Hus-
sey to sign the note. instead Of sign.
ing it he handed it to his wife and told
Ter to run and she ran off with it.
The first witness was c. w. Hussey
OF Waterrile, the attorney who helu
the claim. He stated the story essen
TALLY as above When Mrs. Brisk ran
off with the note Mr.. Hussey held Mr..
Brisk. who was taken by the police
to the office of the city marshal where
Mrs. Brisk came. Mr.. Hussey and an
of1lcer then went out to find the more
but could not find any traces OF it,
The value of the note was $500.
Mrs. Winifred L. Welch and Miss
Amy f. kingsbury, clerks employed
in the office of Mr.. Hussey then told
their versions Of the story which in
the essentials corroborated Mr.. Hus
sey's statements.
Inc claim of the defense as stated
by MIR. Clair, was that Mrs. Brisk tool,
the note with no intention of stealing
1t but rather took it from her husband
and intended to take it to his (AIr
Clalrs) Office to see if the amount q.
the note was correct.
Jacob Brisk then took the stand and
testified that he has a wife and SIP
children and that they all came from
Russia about 10 years ago. DR.. Good
rlch was employed as physician fu
Mrs. Brisk. He then told of the takin..
OF the note stating that he merely
wished his wife to take it to Mr.
Glars office to see if the amount was
correct.