The Portland daily press., 1863-10-20
TO the Editor Of the Press;

TO the Editor Of the Press:
1t Is a characteristic of a certain species of
animals, Call Gaitindcei, to crotc, and we
notice display of that characteristic In your
correspondent in Saturdays paper over the
disposition of the suit Hovey VS.. Hobson. If
the disposition of that suit were final. IL might
afford him some occasion for exultation, that
he or his had escaped, by bubble of the law,
the demands of justice. But as this DISPOSE
ton is not final, we would suggest to him the
wisdom of the maxim mot to crOg till you
are out OF the woods"
The suit alluded to has been pending over
five years, and at intervals during this whole
period the columns of certain papers In this
city have been prostituted by persons in the
interest of defendants, to manufacture a pub
lie sentiment detrimental to the legal rights OF
the plaintiff and subversive of fair and I'M
partial administration OF justice In our courts
of law, to which he has appealed to have his
legal rights settled. The plaintiff has remain
ed quiet under all this newspaper pressure
brought to bear against him, never uttering a
word to repel it, but relying upon the Justice
and merits of his cause, he has been ready and
anxious to have his rights tried by the consti-
tuted tribunals. But defendant fearing to
meet the plaintiff in court of law, succeeded
by resort to every species of strategy to de-
lay and stave off any attempt at trial for two
years tittE tue dttlbuS Ntlc drought.
At the end OF two years, after every device
for delay had failed, and they were forced to
meet the issue, defendants counsel raised this
same objection to the maintenance of the suits
which he has raised this term before his Hon.
or Judge Rice. But Judge Appleton then
presiding, promptly overruled the objection
and proceeded in the trial till plaintiffs and
defendants respective record titles were both
developed, when he ruled that defendants
record title was totally void db injtio, and
that plaintiff was entitled TO recover as mat
ter OF law. Plaintiff might then have taken
a verdict under that ruling, but waived it and
consented to have the case reported up TO the
law Court TO decide whether the rulings of
Judge Appleton were correct
Defendants counsel himself was allowed BY
the courtesy of plaintiffs counsel to draw up
that report, and so little did he think of the
motion which he had made for nonsuit in the
preliminary stage of the investigation over
ruled by Judge Appleton and which is now
sustained by Judge Rice, that he did not deem
it worth his while to present it In the report
for the consideration Of the law Court, being
admonished to said omission doubtless, by a
due respect for his professional reputation.
But the Court did not sustain Judge Apple
tons ruling on defendants record title, but
sent the case back for trial on the question
of fact, viz, the mental competency of Ste
phen Neal to execute the deed under which
defendants claim to hold.
The case, or rather another of the same cas-
es, came up again last January for trial, when
defendants counsel made the same motion for
q non suit, on the same ground that the pur-
chases by plaintiff involved champerty and
maintenance. But Judge Cutting then pre-
siding, overruled the motion and expressly
charged the jury that, "unde,' modern iegisld-
ton plaintiff had a right to make the pur-
chase Of Mrs. bennett, and she had right
10 sell to him" But on ether points of law
plaintiff excepted TO his rulings, the verdict
being against him, and carried the case to the
law Court; all the facts upon which defend
ent's motion for non suit conld be main-
tanned being presented In that report.
But when that case was argued before the
law Court in July last, defendents counsel ex-
pressly waived any reliance upon that OBJ
lection, and distinctly and expressly admitted
in his argument that the legislature had so
changed the law that no objection could be
raised on that ground.
At the trial of this same case Hovey v. Hob
son, at the last April term, he again ar
gued it TO the jury, but Judge Davis then pre-
siding again overruled it. This objection hav-
ing been thus overruled by three Of the Judg-
cs at nisi at successive trials, viz: by Judg-
es Appleton, Cutting and Davis, may be pre-
sumed to account for his not insisting upon
the objection before the Law Court In July.
But at this term when he saw he had got to
face al intelligent and understanding jury. ca
pable of comprehending the case, knowing
that at the trial of the same case In April last
the jury stood ten for plaintiff to two for de-
iendent, as last desperate resort to escape a
verdict against him he again for the fourth
time raises the same stale objection, that the
purchase by plaintiff OF Mrs. Dement'S title
involved champerty and maintenance, and
! by IL he has succeeded In obtaining another
| years possession of the demanded premises
which appears TO afford him much consolation
| That this objection is resortei TO merely for
delay, we only have TO quote the language OF
the full court in precisely similar case, drawn
| by His Honor Chief Justice Shepley in lS45.
| After quoting the statutes making the change
! in the common law, he says: "However great
may be the mischief anticipated by such a
| change OF the common law, as will permit dor
| mant titles to be purchased from persons dis
seized, who have a right of entry, il has been
| the pleasure Of the Legislature thus to author
lie 1t, by language too clear and decisive TO
admit Of any different construction
| dustin c. Sterens, 2ith Ne. Rep, y. 527.)
How, then, the purchase of property, or the
| title TO property, thus authorized BY statute,
can involve any criminality, l leave TO the elu-
cidatlon Of your correspondent, who says these
| suits have occasioned no little excitement and
indignation in this community" .Hirdbilc
| dictu. mo little excitement that suits are
brought in court OF law, TO test the validity
| of a deed, the grantor in which had been pro.
nounced by two successive iuries, totally in
competent to execute it, long before his clients
took possession of the property in question.
| Wonder how far the excitement extends be-
yond his clients who fear that they may he
| dispossessed Of their ill-gotten gains! Hadn't
he better abolish all courts and all law lest his
clients should suffer? For
NO thief e'er felt the halter draw
With good opinion of the law"