Case Name: John Wall, Jr., versus Henry B. Farnham & als.
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1859
Citations: 46 Me. 525
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Wall, Jr., versus Henry B. Farnham & als.
Judges: Appleton, Cutting, Davis, and Kent, J. J., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 525–526

Head Matter:
John Wall, Jr., versus Henry B. Farnham & als.
A complaint and warrant, in due form, are a sufficient justification for an officer and his aids for seizing spirituous liquors under the statute, 1851, c. 211.
On Report of the facts by Hathaway, J.
Trespass for seizing liquors of the plaintiff, stored in the cellar of E. Adams’s store in Bangor, July 10, 1853. The defendant Earnham justified as city marshal, acting under a warrant duly issued by the police court of Bangor, and the other defendants, as his servants or aids. The complaint, warrant and return were in the case. The case was submitted to the Court, to be determined according to the legal rights of the parties.
A. Knowles, for the plaintiff,
argued that it should appear affirmatively that the liquors seized were intended for sale in the State, but there is no such evidence.
W. C. Crosby, for the defendants.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Tenney, C. J.
To this action of trespass, for taking certain spirituous liquors, the defendants plead the general issue, which is joined; and file a brief statement, in which Henry B. Farnham, one of the defendants, justifies the taking as city marshal of the city of Bangor, under a warrant issued by the judge of the police court of that city on May 27, 1853; and the other defendants justify as the servants of said Farnham.
Erom the pleadings and the evidence it appears that the taking by defendants was the original seizure under the warrant ; and the plaintiff did not present his case, as claiming a right to recover, by reason of any irregularity in the proceedings of the city marshal afterwards.
The complaint and the warrant were a justification to the city marshal, and the other defendants, who aided him in the seizure. According to the agreement of the parties the plaintiff must become Nonsuit.
Appleton, Cutting, Davis, and Kent, J. J., concurred.