Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-03-26

| thing wrong, but who was reelected, |
might be prosecuted for his acts in |
| the previous term. The question !
raised by this motion 10 whether the /
charges are to be confined to the
present term or whether he is |
answerable for what happened in
another term. We ask dismissal only
OF complaints dealing with the time
before April /, 1925.
Judge Spear, in the case Of Scully
against Moulton, defined what is
available to the prosecution in a
case Of this kind. Sheriff Nfoulton
was accused Of wickedly failing to
do his duty under specific statute.
1t was wholly Of nonfeasance. and he
could, in denial, produce the record
of what he did do. 1t was not a
matter of misfeasance.
1--WE are prepared to 60 on with
the hearing If non feasance alone is
! charged.
IF a man is charged with theft, !
the complaint alleges where the
articles was stolen, when it was
stolen, and what was stolen.
The same holds true in civil
pleading. That doesn't mean that
the prosecution woulds be held
so specifically but in common fair
ness and courtesy the allegations
should be made specific enough.
They need to be, because Mr..
Fisher, in his opening, indicated that
he would call men who have been
or are in Jail. and 1t is our duty to
give you their record, to see whether
or not they are men of standing and
credibility.
II have talked with Mr.. Fisher
| repeatedly, as recently as is minutes
M he 1N~e -.
the specific allegations. His opening
statement is not definite enough for
me to undertake to defend this man.
Speaks of Duty Of Sheriff
Charles B. Carter Of Auburn, in
behalf of the state, replied that the
state in relation to the duty of a
sheriff. the executive officer of a
county, has stated, it Is his duty to
enforce the laws and to care for the
Iprisoners, and a punishment is pro-
vided for any breach of duty on the
part of the sheriff. If this demurrer
were presented in criminal court.
it might have some bearing on the
matter.
'If in the face of the crime wave
all over the country" said Attorney
Carter, "a sheriff conducts his Jail in
a loose and lax manner, the people
Of the state say that under such
conditions it is not necessary to start
a criminal process against a sheriff.
More than two thirds of the voters
of Maine by the adoption Of a consti-
tutional amendment say that when
these conditions exist in a county.
the governor and council may on
complaint that the sheriff is not do
ing his duty remove him.
This proceeding is in no way a
criminal proceeding, and there is no
penalty attached to this case except
removal of the charges are proven.
The rules and practices of criminal
procedure do not apply to this case.
The respondent is changed with the
enforcement of the law and keepin.
the prisoners in the jail The Jail
is under his sole charge and the
liquors in that Jail are under his sole
charge, and he alone Is responsible.
1--WE contend that some of the acts
Of the first term of Sheriff Cum
mings leads to acts alleged to have
been committed during his present
term.
IT ask that the motions of the
counsel for the defence be. denied"
Should Give Specifications
Judge Connolley said that he
could see no reason why speclfca-
tions should not be given. 1t is
procedure followed in all court trials
whether civil or criminal; and in
equity matters. He said that the
length to which the complainant
seemed ready to go to make its case
sometimes appalled, him and at others
it appeared ridiculous. If it was the
duty of the sheriff to know all that
took part in the JAIL he must re-
main there every moment OF tne
time and could not attend to his
other duties.
!, Judge Connolley contended that
!, there is no law which said that a
prisoner must be kept in Jail all the
thine. If man was in need or a
!, dentist would not the sheriff be ex-
! pected to act humanely and see that
he was treated. In the event that the
. mother of a prisoner were dying
would 1t not be humane to let the
prisoner go to her. 1t had been done
by order of the Governor OF Maine.
The defense, he said, would admit
|, that prisoners had been taken out OF
the Jail under some circumstances.
Following a conference by council.
/ Governor Brewster announced that
the motion was denied.
The first witness William Shaw
Of Augusta, was called and sworn
and then Judge Connolley asked for
: list of the witnesses and that an
be sworn together. Mr.. Fisher OBJ
: iected and said that there was no
rule of law. He cited the Burke
murder trial at Skowhegan In 1920.
as a precedent, saying that the
presiding judge refused to order the
state to furnish defense with list
of witnesses. His contention was
upheld and he was allowed to pre-
sent and swear the witnesses singly.
William Shaw of Augusta Testifies
Mr.. Shaw stated that he had
served a term in the Kennebec
. county Jail, a ri months sentence
, beginning Sept. IA, 1923 and ending
the latter part Of March 1925. He
| described the location of the room in
, the Jail where the liquor that is
seized, is stored.
did you see any drinking in jail
among the prisoners" asked At
. torney Fisher.
Eyes, sir" replied Mr.. Shaw.
"How much did you see?"
more or less"
"Was it common occurrence"
asked Attorney Fisher.
Eyes, sir"
Take Liquor from Liquor Room
: Describing how the liquor was
obtained, witness said he had seen
, it taken out through the CRATES of
J the liquor room by means of hook
! and a pole.
) What kind of liquor was taken
, out?' asked Mr.. Fisher.
Alcohol" the witness replied.
ibid you see prisoners with bot
; ties of intoxicating liquor?"
Yes, sir"
what kinds of liquor We're there?"
!. Several different kinds" replied