Daily Kennebec journal., 1924-12-12

Two rescripts were handed down
by the law court Wednesday. oue
from Aroostook county and the 9TH
er from Lincoln county.
AroostOOk Case
The court in overruling the ex-
ceptions of the respondent and Civ
Ing judgment for the state in the
case of Richard s. Vereker of Houl-
ton, convicted of being a common
liquor seller and who was a witness
in the Aroostook conspiracy cases.
so called, in the federal court at
Bangor, declares that Vefeker's con-
viction in the state courts Is amply
sustained upon grounds entirely in
dependent of the question orlmmun-
ity. A petition for the pardon of
Vereker Is now pending before the
governor and council.
1.-The respondent in this case was
indicted as q common seller of in
toxicating liquors at the April term
of court, 1924, at Houlton, in the
script, which was drawn by Asso-
ciate Justice Albert Af. Spear (Re-
tiredb of Gardiner.
THE respondent was duly ar
raigned and placed on trial." con-
tinues the rescript. The state pro-
, ceeded to prove its case by present.
ing Cecil Clay, official stenographer.
as a witness, who was requested by
the County Attorney. to read from
his official stenographic notes, the
| testimony Of the respondent. taken
at the trial. for conspiracy. OF Ed
mund w. Grant and Willard s. Lew
/ in. at the November term. 102. of3
the United States District Court.
held at Bangor, Vereker was sub
poenead by the Federal Court.
The evidence of Verecker given
at the conspiracy trial was Offered
as an admission that from August
| 11th to October 10Th or 21st." 1922.
he was eAgaged lin the liquor busi-
ness" The only evidence offered
to prove the charge in the indict-
ment in the State Court was precise
ly the same evidence given by the
respondent at the conspiracy trial
III the District Court.
When the evidence was offered in
the State Court fhe respondent OBJ
jected to it's admission, upon the-con-
tention that, inasmuch as the re-
spondcnt in the Federal Court was
obliged to testify against himself. re-
gardlesS of his constitutional pro-
NS>eAOiA oiA'Ni tlAN Pi vi CcC-
tiOn q. Article 1 of the State constt-
tuition. he was entitled to immunity
under the Federal Statute, which,
while compelling him to furnish evi-
dence against himself, nevertheless
undertook to- protect his constHu-
| tional rights by the guarantee of i'm
munity found in the United States
supplementary statutes of 1923, sec
ton $500, that
mo natural person shall he N,se-
cuted or subjected to any penalty or
forfeiture for or on account of any
transaction, matter or thing rs to
which in obedience to a subpoena
and under oath, they may so testify,
or produce evidence"
We are of the opinion that comfy
between the United States and State
Courts should be observed to the
fullest extent when the question of
immunityis properly made an issue
in the State Court and that statutes
of immunity should be given the
broadest application.
We are. however. not called upon
! to discuss the exceptions of the
: respondent in the present case. His
conviction Is amply sustained upon
grounds entirely independent of the
uueStlOIl' Oh immunity. lie TOOK the
witness stand in his own behalf at
the trial in the State Court, and,
Without claiming the immunity
guaranteed by the State Constitution,
rs was his right, voluntarily testified
that he was engaged in the liquor
business, from August II. 1922, to
October Goth. or 21st., 1900. The
respondent. however, contends that
that admission is not sufficient to be
regarded as proof that he was en-
gagged in the business as a common
seller. But any other inference
would border on the realm Of stulti-
fication.
| Lincoln Case
The appeal of the plaintiff Is dis
| missed in the Lincoln county case of
! Lillian NJ. Abbot, ct ais, VS.. Ida NJ.
| Clark.
The pescript. which was drawn by
| Chief Justice Leslie G. Cornish of
| Augusta, is as follows:
Real action. Plaintiffs title rests
upon a warranty deed dated Novem-
ber 81. 1894. the plaintiffs being the
heirs at law of the grantee. Defend
Il a ;fDlN II Infa