The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1873-12-17
Superior COurt.


DECEMBER CIVIL TERM, 1873, BEFORE JUDGE sY
MoNDs.
TUEsDAY.-George c. Hopkins VS.. John w. Nc
Duffee. This action of assumpsit upon an
account annexed to the writ, amounting to S95.s3.
All the items except were for professional
vices rendered by the plaintiff attorney az law
in the prosecution of suit brought by McDuffee
against Bruce and Others the editors proprietors
of the "Turf Field and Farm" and tried before the
Justice of this court in December, 1872 The other
item was for ''writ and disbursements, $685."
The plaintiff testified that he acted as an attorney
at law and rendered the services for which he has
sued. The docket entries in the of McDufee
Bruce were put in evidence, showing that Mr.. Hop
kin's name appeared for the plaintiff under the ac
ton, but no other evidence was offered tending to
prove that he was an attorney at law or had ever
been duly admitted to practice law in the courts of
this State.
The defendants counsel claimed that the plaintiff
was not entitled to recover by virtue of section 90
chapter 70 of the Revised Statutes, which is fol-
lows:
ono person commencing practice attorney or
counsellor at law in any other State or place, or in
any Court in this State, without the qualifications
oaths, and payment of the duty aforesaid shall be
entitled to demand any remuneration for
his professional services rendered in this State.''
By the agreement of the parties the jury assessed
the damages and this question reserved for the
determination of the Law Court. The jury assessed
the DAMAGES at S9726.
Strout s. Holmes for plaintiff
Frank for defendant.
John W. McDuffee vs. P. NJ and A. G. Thurlow
This is an action for money had and received to
cover of the defendants the of hundred dol
lars. Sometime in the early part of October, 1872
the Oxford County Agricultural Society offered pre-
MUM of 5000. to be trotted for by the stations Phil
Sheridan, owned by Thurlow, and King William
owned by McDuee mile heats, the best three in five
to take the purse,
McDuffee says that previous to the trot he went
he Thurlow brothers and proposed that they go up
Norway and trot the race in good faith and which
horse the purse should be divided equally
between them, and to this they agreed. At the trot
two heats were won by Sheridan. The third heat
there was a collision between the two, in which the
driver of Sheridan was thrown from the suky, while
the driver of King William retained his seat and
went on under the line. McDufee claimed that
Sheridan distanced, and that therefore he was
entitled to the The judges, however, decided
that the heat belonged to the King but sheridan
not distanced. McDuffee then said if they did not
their decision and give him the he should
withdraw his horse. The judges refused to reverse
their decision and ordered him to bring his horse
for the fourth heat, which McDufee refused to do
and Sheridan trotted alone, and by the decision of
the judges won the race, The money paid over
to A. G. Thurlow.
The defendants deny that there was ever any such
agreement to divide the purse. They say that there
was some talk about it, but when McDuffee, as he
thought, that his horse trotting little bet
ter than Sheridan, said on the morning of the trot
that there would be division, he going in and
win. The>defendants also testify that although p.
M. Thurlow the horse yet he had given him up
to the of his BROTHER A. Co. he to have all the
income from him. The only demand that was made
for this half Of the purse was upon p M. Thurlow,
who says he has received cent and is not en-
titled to it.
The counsel for the defendant contends that even
supposing there such an agreement as claimed
by the plaintiff he is not entitled to recover, because
he violated the contract in not trotting the fourth
heat; and further, that such agreement is against
public policy and illegal. Verdict for he defendants.
Strout & Gage for plaintiff.
Frye & Cotton for defendants.