The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1862-10-10
Supreme Judicial Court.
SEPTEMBER TERN, 1862.

SEPTEMBER TERN, 1862.
Second Wesk,-The only case tried during
the frst week was No. 332, William Stanley VI.
Hebron Libbey. This was an action In assump-
sit on certain prommissory notes. The defense
set up was the payment Of said notes In full to
the payee prior TO their transfer oy him TO the
plaintiff in this action, and that when said
notes we're So transferred they were overdue. -
Kimball, Jordan & Rollins for Plaintiff; Drew
and VIM. Emery for Defendant. Verdict for
Defendant.
The Grand Jury came 10 on Saturday OF first
week, and reported ten bills of Indictment
The County Attorney, Col. II. L. apley was
absent from the Grand Jury room and from
the Court three days OF the week, and Asa
Low, Esq, Of Sanford, was appointed by the
Court to ill his place.
The tirs, case tried second week was No. 1903,
Martin Thompson VS.. Rufus Wadleigh. This
was all action in assnmpslt for labor. Inc de-
tense set up was special contract, which the
defendant was ready and willing at all times 20
perform. Jury did not agree, kimball Tor
plaintiff; ]. II. Goodenow for Defendant.
The next case given to the Jury was No. 200
Alyah W. Bsm VS.. William p. Folsom. This
was a writ OF entry, wherein the Pr. claimed
certain premises occupied by Deft. The defence
set up involved the title to said land. Drew
aud Low for PlE; Kimball for Def. Verdict
for Pr i,
The mex, case was No. 2si, Henry W. Lord
vs.. Samuel d. Tebbetts. This was an action OF
troyer for certain liquors seized by the Def
by virtue Of n precept against one Jeremiah
Lord, father OF the Plf The defense set up
WAS that at the time Of the seizure Of said
liquors they we're the property Of said Jere
miah Lord, and not the property OF the Plain.
tiff, and that they were deposited for unlawful
sale. Verdict for Defendant. N. Hobbs and
wiggin for Plaintiff Low and Kimball Tor
The next case was No. 3l3. Ivory Junkins vs..
Charles C, Webber. Action Of trespass-on
trial when Court adjourned to Monday, third
week. I. II. Hubbard and Kimball for Plain-
tilt; Marshall and Goodenow for Defendant:
Third Week.-Mrs. case Of Junkns VS.. Web,
Der, on trial when court adjourned second
week. was resumed on Monday morning, and
finished ON Tuesday. Verdict for plf. I. II.
Hubbard and I. s. Kimball for plaintiff, N.
@. Marshall and ]. H.Goodenow for defendant.
The next case opened to the jury was No.
3ls, Janyrin F.wiggin VS.. Joseph Cooper. As
sumpsit on promissOry note. Defence set up
was denial Of consideration. The case was
taken from the jury and goes up ON report
Wells and Eastman for plf, William Emery Tor
defendant. :.
The next case given to the jury was No. 1913,
John II. Roberts VS.. Benjamin +. hnlght.-
Drew for plf., Kimball for def. Verdict for
plaintiff.
The next case was No. 452, Harvey Jewell vs.
Asa Wentworth. Assumpsit on note. Defense
set up was failure OF consideration. l.. IL.
wiggin for plf Eastman s Son and Drew for
deit.
The next case was No. 433. Amauiah Good
win VS.. James Goodwin. This was a suit on
bond TO maintain the Plaintiff and his wife
Defence set up performance Of the condition -
j. II. Goodenow for plE, Drew Hamilton for
delft. Verdict for def.
In the case Of Mary S. Lord, libelant vs..
Hosea Q. Lord, divorce was decreed. VIM.
Emery for libellant
In the case Of State VS.. James Mcdonald, for
false pretenses, the indictment was quashed
upon motion Of defendants counsel. Tspley
for Government, Drew & Hamilton for De-
PENDANT.
The close of this term is the close Of busy
one, aud is the last term holden by judge
Goodenow, whose term OF office expires this
month. Who his successor will be Is US yet un-
known.
The next term is to be holden in saco.-Dsn-
ocrat