The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1877-07-26

JULY SESSION FOR WESTERN DISTRICT.
WEDNESDAY, July 25.-The day was mostly occu-
pied by the arguments of counsel in Massey We. Mas
sey, which was opened Tuesday.
YORK COUNTY.
No. 115.-Moore VS.. Durgin Argued by Drew for
the plaintiff and Yeaton for the defendant.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
No. 175-Larrabee VS.. Grant. Howard g. Cleaves
for plaintiff and Hale for defendant Submitted on
brief. Briefs in.
Our previous record has shown what cases were
argued and also the decisions. We now append a
list of cases to be argued in writing.
FRANKLIN COUNTY.
No. 1.-Peaslee vs. Bean. To be dismissed unless
papers and arguments are filed in 60 days.
No. 5.-Bunker VS.. Robbins. Exceptions TO be
overruled unless copies are furnished in 80 dayR.
No. 6.-Fellows in equity VS.. Fellows ct al. Whit
comb for plaintiff, to furnish written argument in
80 days; then s. Becher, for the defendant, to fur
nish his argument in 30 days thereafter and Whit
comb in 80 days more to furnish his reply.
No. Stakeholder vs.. Pinkham ct al. To be ar
gued in so days.
No. 11-Hobbs ct al. Vs. Gould. To be argued in
writing in 80 days, 80 days and 30 days.
No. 12.-Houghton VS.. Palm. In writing 80, 30,
No. 1s.-Morse ct ux. VS.. Merrill. Same.
No. 19.-Hitchcock VS.. Gould. Same
NO. 21,-Tarbox vs. Vose In writing during the
term.
No. 23.-Banss VS.. Record. Same or decision
without. Plaintiffs brief in.
No. 24.-Dow vs.. Alden. 80, 3d. 30.
No. 25.-Paine VS.. New Sharon. Same.
No. 27-Gammon VS.. HUFF. H. Becher's brief for
plaintiff in Whtcomb to furnish his during the
term.
No. 2S.-Lewis We. Lewis. 80, so, 80 or decision
without.
No. 29.-French VS.. Sanborn. Same.
OXFORD COUNTY.
No. 43.-Davis VS.. White. 60, 80, 80.
No. 45.-Barry vs. SanborD. 80, 80, 80.
No. 47.-White VS.. Brown. 4 During the term.
No. 49.-Fryeburg VS.. Brownfeld. Defendants
briefin. Plaintiff to reply in so days.
No. 53.-Caldwell vs.. Blake. Hammond for plain
tiff and Frye for defendant have furnished their
briefs.
No. 54.-Lewis VS.. Smart. 80, 20, 10.
No. 55.-Wiey VS.. Williams. 60 and CO.
No. 57.-Jewett VS.. Hamlin. 80, 80, 80.
ANDRosCGGIN COUNTY.
No. 73.-Perkins vs.. Fogg. Plaintiffs Argument
to be furnished in 80 days or motion overruled
No. 78-Merrill vs. Merrill. Ludden for plaintiff,
and Hutchinson s. Savage tor defendant. Briefs are
in.
No. s6.-Briggs exr. VS.. Davis. N. Morrill, for
plaintiff and Frye, Cotton and White for defendant,
have furnished their briefs.
No. 91.-Purington vs. Security Life ms Co. 30,
10, 10.
No. 93.-Allen ct al. VS.. Goodenow let al.4 80 and
10.
No. 101,-Haley VS.. Hobson g. To be overrued
unless defendant furnished copies and arguments in
days and copy of exceptions filed. To file copy OF
evidence in 10 days, then to argue in writing.
No. 113-McIntire vs. Plaisted. 80. 80, 30.
No. 114.-Woodman VS.. Lewiston. Same.
No. 12O,-Richards We. Tarbox. 80, so.
No. 1S1.-Tuxbury, apppt from decree of Judge o.
Probate. 80, 30, 30.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
No. 40 - Dnmnhy in enuitv DumnhV eft al. 30
80, 10.
No. 171.-Same VS.. Dumpby. Same.
No. 1S9.-McLellan VS.. Worthy. 80, 30, 80.
191.-Brion vs. MCKINLEY. 20, 10, 10.
2O1.-Hazen ct al. vs.. Jones. 80, 80, 80.
No. 204.-Cobb VS.. Jones. Same.
No. 205.-Watson VS.. Jones. Same.
No. 217.-Winslow VS.. Morrill, ct al. co. 80, 80, Of
defendants motion overruled.
No. 220.-Worcester VS.. Portland. t6O, 80, Is.
B. CIeaves' brief is in.
The court adjourned over to Friday morning at