The town of Canterbury continues to be embroiled in a slow-moving lawsuit that stemmed from a dispute between a contractor and his unsatisfied customer and boiled over into a sequence of inflammatory texts, an arrest for harassment and the homeowner’s pursuit of restitution.
In the fall of 2024, Jesse Crowell hired a local contractor to perform plumbing and tiling work at his Canterbury residence, which he said fell short of his expectations. Dissatisfied, Crowell left the business a three-star review, inciting a turbulent series of exchanges between himself and his wife, Melanie, and the contractor and his spouse.
The Canterbury Police Department served members of both households with harassment orders on October 10, 2024, according to court documents. A few days later, police arrested Crowell, saying that he had violated the order by antagonizing the contractor over text after the order had been issued.
Crowell maintains that police misinterpreted the timestamp of a screenshot of a message he sent prior to being served the harassment order, and while a court found probable cause for his arrest based on Canterbury police’s request for a warrant, a prosecutor later threw out the case against him.
His civil suit, originally brought against the town in March of 2025, was transferred to Merrimack Superior Court that June at the town’s request for a jury trial.
“Best case, it was gross incompetence, but regardless, I suffered,” said Crowell, who is representing himself.
Attorneys for the town have twice asked the court to dismiss Crowell’s lawsuit, which began as a small claims suit seeking $10,000 as a partial reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and other losses accrued during the criminal case against him. Crowell amended his complaint in January, and a judge is currently evaluating whether to dismiss the case.
The town’s attorneys argue in their petition that a judge’s finding of probable cause negates Crowell’s claim of false arrest. In addition, they acknowledge the law creates a carve-out for intentional civil wrongs, but argue Crowell’s allegation of negligence does not meet that standard.
Canterbury, their motion reads, “would be immune under statutory and official immunity
doctrines” to a negligence suit, and beyond that allegation, “it remains unclear what specific legal claim [Crowell] intends to bring.”
“We passed on to our liability insurance provider, Primex, notification of the small claims court lawsuit, and they’re handling it. At this point, the town is just waiting for the legal process to go through,” said Town Administrator Ken Folsom.
Folsom confirmed in an August, 2025, email obtained by the Monitor that Crowell’s complaint to the board of selectmen had been placed in the personnel file of the arresting officer, Michael Dumas.
If a judge heeds the town’s motion to dismiss and his lawsuit does not proceed to trial, Crowell said he doesn’t plan to let his grievances go.
“I’m not anti-police, I’m not a radical, the only thing I did wrong was hire the wrong contractor,” he said. “I’ve remained silent. If it gets thrown out, I’m going to make my voice heard.”
