Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-11-19

ington for the w. B. Nash and r r.
Feacock for Mr.. Hagland.
MI. Dubord In his opening stated
tnat the action was brought to re-
cover damages for false arrest and
assault and battery.
Inc plaintiff is son OF a form or
deputy OF Henry Cummings, and the
defendants are deputies of John East
man, the present sheriff.
| Leo Lessard testified that he and
ms brother and another young man
nad mad a lunch in restaurant on
| water street. and then went across
the street; 1t was about II O'Clock
ana they had just returned from q
| nshlng trip-and a car passed down
| IN which were the two defendants
In a short time the car came hack.
MI: Hagland got out, came to them
ana told them he had orders that
no one could do that. Plaintiff said
ne asked him: Doing what?" De-
PENDANT replied Don't act so damned
innocent" Plaintiff said: "About
what? don't know what you mean.'
Then Hagland said: "You want to
md out?" Plaintiff said he did. Then
that Hagland grabbed him by both
SIDES, took him off the fence and turn
ed him around and put his hands ON
MS neck, took him to the automobile
and tried to push him in, but plain
tift said he asked him to let up and
not tear his clothes and hurt him,
ana he let up and plaintiff got into
the car. Plaintiff said his shirt was
I torn and that Hagland applied force
TO his neck and sides, and pushed him
hurriedly.
In reply to a question plaintiff de-
MED that he said to Mr.. Hagland that
ne could hiss at him IL he wanted
to, as claimed by defendant, end that
1t was none of his damned business:
and that he made no such remark.
Later plaintiff was taken to the
Waterville City hall and locked up
IN the police station until the next
morning. He was then taken to the
municipal court, but no charge was
made. against him, and no warrant
was Issued. He was required to give
pond for his appearance, and appear
ed IN court for six days, the case f.
nally being dismissed.
Several witnesses were called and
corroborated the testimony Of plain
tiff. The plaintiff and his witnesses
stated that he had not been drinking,
o'hu was liOt uuueT the lnnuenCe or
liquor at the time of his arrest.
The defense in this case was a gem
eraF denial of all charges made by
plaintiff. In regard to w. B. Nash 1t
was claimed that he simply was rid
ing in the car with Mr.. Hagland and
took no part In the arrest.
Mr. Hagland stated that he drove
past the place in question two or
three times, and that there was hiss
ing. and some talk that he could not
understand; that finally he stopped
his car and went over to the men,
who were sitting on fence, and ask
ed them If they did not think they
(the officers) ought to have the privi-
lege Of riding on the street without
being Kissed at or talked about and
hollered at. He said at first they
claimed they had made no noise, and
plaintiff then said: what II I did hiss
at you?" He said he then arrested
the plaintiff, but used no force, and
took him to the police station and
had him locked up. The next morn
ing he asked for warrant in the
municipal court, but did not get 1t,
and finally the plaintiff was allowed
to go. He stated that he still believed
he should have had a warrant, as the
plaintiff was intoxicated and was
making disturbance.
The jury retired to consider their
verdict at s o'clock.
Verdict for plaintiff 346725.