The Portland daily press., 1870-02-17
supreme Judicial Gours.

FEBRUARY TERMINATION, j. PRESIDING.
WEDNEsDAY.-Alfred Richards ct ais. vs. Albert
stephenson ct ais. Action on account annexed for
SHOP worth of clam bait. Verdict for defendants.
Bradburys Putnam.
State vs. Orlando C. Brown. Ha6eas Corpus 1t
appeared by the record that the prisoner, orlando
G. Brown. after plea of guilty to Indictment for
obtaining goods by false pretences, was sentenced in
the Superior Court to six months imprisonment in
the county Jail aud warrant OF commitment issued
the 18th OF January, four days afterwards On the
29th of January The prisoner brou hit into Court
and the sentence of six months Imprisonment in the
county Jail revoked and sentenced 10 three years i'm
prisonment in the State prison.
The for revoking the first sentence ap-
peared to be that the Court assured by the pris
aut ~ n,her persons that he had heretofore
sastsss 1sa n-TeT been
geiitf o. silf. -tiIo, 4.t DID sltsug cid
1e s.'s- ID To-. .la a-., tiee. y rsss i sph-
s7t c5ag tat .rs1 ao aal ft1t s4ss..isr@ h5.e-E
'4f-,s s-l.-.z '---ara-,i- ..s-s..-3 -e.-.sf7-
~ 81 Of Is T.wo s tlrEary i9 she state n slis-
souri,, gat r., iisst ve.s digeFs si-.l ytspes O.
auis1- hc vas eat-- Tte,sattg Cesrs being
ss .sisd OF foregoing Iacus, .g-s
imp sed upon, ordered that the previous sentence
passed upon him be revoked and that he be pun
isbed by confinement in the State prison for the
OF three years. The question, therefore, to be deter
miued was whether His Honor in the Court below
acted within the scope of his authority in revoking
sentence which had been in part performed by the
prisoner.
The Court remarked that the question involved
was one Of the highest importance; and that mas
m ich as nisi prius decision would have but little
weight as an authority, he woud for the purpose OF
obtaining decision from the full Court, rule pro
Jorma That the prisoner be remanded
Webb. Drummond.
Albert Stephenson VS.. Alfred Richards ct ais
Contract. Plaintiff alleges that on the 23d day of
November he conveyed to attendants two fishing
schooners the Scioto and Gloucester and in consid-
Grafton thereof they agreed and promised that when
they disposed of said vessels they would satisfy the
demands which were then held against said vessels
by plaintiff, and which amount to about $500.
Defendants say that when these vessels were trans
ferred to them the plaintiff said that he thought a
certain firm at Deer Isle had claim on the vessels
Tor supplies furnished them one year, and that he
thousht ne or the firm, of which he member,
had claim on them for a hawser, and that he want
ed something TO protect him against those Claims;
that on thee representations the agreements were
given; that subsequently discovered that there
was no claim against the vessels for supplies fur
nished and that the hawser was furnished and
charged to another vessel and that the plaintiff then
agreed to get the agreements and give them up that
defendants saw him several times subsequently and |
he (Stephensop) promised every to send the pa
pers to them, alleging that he had forgotten them
that at time did he inform defendants that there
were any other claims that the papers were given
for or intended to cover any Others On trial.
Putnam. Bradburys.