The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1870-05-27
SUPREME JUDICIAL couHr.
SUFNEWE JUUIC1AL COUNIs
York County, May Term, 1870
DANroRrH, e., PkEsiDISd.. "a

~ -
The first two days Of the term were occupied
with the case Of Goodwin vs.. Lord. Goodwin
for Plaintiff Emery & Son for Defendant, which
was brought before the court In the January
term, and left undecided by q disagreement Of
the Jury. Verdict for Defendant. r-vrsr
Simpson Va. Emerson: $50 Trcspass for
taking horse. The Defendant pleads that the
taking was legal ne being at that time collector
Of taxes In Alfred, and distraincd the property
Of the Plaintiff for the noh-payment Of taxes
committed to him for the want Of proper sigma
ture 10 the warnht-that the commitment was
not signed, and no return Of sale made rs re
quircd by statute. Reported. -.--
Dean. Low. Lord, Smith.
Quite number Of cases assigned for trial
were disposed Of BY settlement between the par.
ties.
On Wednesday, John NJ. Brown. Of Parsons
field, and John s. Derby Of Alfred were admit
ted.
On Saturday the new Docket was called, and
the term Of the Grand Jury having expired,
they were excused from further duty after pre-
scnting the following indictments.
State vs.. Nicholas Pinkham, common seller.
State vs. John Stingy, common seller.
State VS.. VIM. NJ. Mason, larceny.
State vs.. Inhabitants Of Berwick, defective
way.
State vs.. Samuel d. Tibbctts, common seller.
State VS.. James J. Houghton, common seller.
State vs.. Samuel D. Tibbitts, keeping tipping
house.
State VS.. John Cantillion, common seller.
State vs.. William II. Gerrish, assault and bat
terry.
State vs.. Charles W. Austin, common seller.
Monday and Tuesday-The case Of HQbson vs..
City Of Saco. Hobson and Drew for Plaintiff.
Smith and Kimball for Defendant
Friday, May 20.-No. 257. Stimson v. En-
erson. Action for trcspass. Emerson, Alfred
town constable, SEIZED horse belonging to plain
tif. for non-payment Of taxes. Plf. claims that
taxes were illegally assessed, and Furthermore
claims that seizure Of horse was illegal, there
being no return made on warrant Defence,
general issue. Case withdrawn by defence and
sent up TO full court on report and statement Of
facts. ..
Drew. ..... ...- Lord, Smith.
Monday and Tuesday, May g, 4.-No. 5GS.
Hobson v. city Of Sico. Action for damages
for injuries alleged TO have been sustained by
plf. In the winter OF 1869, ON Main street, SacO.
condition rs to endsnger life and limb; also al
legcs that he received severe injuries by falling
ON said sidewalk. from the effect Of which he
still suffers furthermore alleges that the fault
thereof was wholly on the part Of the city mas
much as they unrcasonably neglected to repair
said sidewalk and put II in safe condition.
For all which plf claims 5000 damages. De-
fence, plf did not exercise sufficient caution ;
Furthermore that sidewalk was in good general
condition. Plaintiff adduced testimony
tending 10 show that the sidewalk was dis
grace TO q civilized community, that It WIS IS
rough as corduroy rad and dangerous as an
Alpine pass. The defence on the other hand
laborcd TO prove that the sidewalk in point OF
ease and safety was quite equal to Broadway :
that Il was "quite treat" 10 walk over 1t;
that il was in fact worthy to be compared with
the streets of that heavenly city whereof VIC
read In scripture. The jury seeming to lean to
the Paradisiacsl view, returned verdict for
dcf(s. Pr then made motion for new trial on
ground Of verdict against the evidence. :.
Hobson, Drew. Smith. kimball.
Wednesday, May 25.-No. 406. Rice v. Per-
~. Action to receive 100000, the value o.
twenty tons # superphosphate Of lime. Plf
alleges that on June IA, 1869, he bought o.
Whitchouse & Goodwin twenty tons OF super.
pbosphate, and that on the 10 Of June said
superphosphatc was attached by Deputy Pen
nell OF Cumberland Co. on writ Of Watson q
Clark. against whtchouse & Goodwin, and HI
therefore sues Sheriff Perry for full value Of
property attached. Defence admit official en-
pacity Of Perry and the fact Of the attachment
but in defense plead the general issue, and fur
tbcrmore As special specification, that the SAIL
] from Goodwin & whitehouse t. Rice was q
fraudulent sale, and therefore null and void 10
law. On trial Prosecution got In their evi.
dence Wednesday morning and Smith opened
for the defense in the afternoon.
Hamilton, Aver. Waterman, Drew, Smith.
No 392. Eaton V. Severance & al. is assign.
ell for Thursday. 1t is an action on promiss'
DRY note. Defence, consideration partly failed
Weld & Marshall, Copeland. Swasey 4 Son.
There has been large attendance this week
and business Is progressing rapidly.-The new
manner Of empannelng juries seems to please
oil, as II neccssitatcs the presence OF smaller
number of jurors and consequently entails les'
expenses upon the county. The ruling Of Judge
Danford plesses every one, and he has wor
many concentrations by the impartility OF hi'
decisions aud the courtesy Of his demeanor,
The probabilities are that the term will clos
about the middle Of next week. We notice
among the entries on the docket the actions en-
tered by Francis Bacon in behalf Of William
Shakespeare and Walter Scott. A trio OF re
markable names! Divorce decreed: Margie
8. Record, libelt. vs., Edmund J. Record
Cause desertion.
H. a. Dean for libellant.