The Portland daily press., 1878-07-18
supreme judicial Court.

HON. JOHN APPLETON, Chief Justice, presiding
Hons. CHARLES W. WALTON, JONATHAN g.
DIcKERsoN, WILLIAM G.. BARRows, WILLIAM
WRIT VIRGIN, ARTEMAs LIBBEY, Associate Jus.
tees.
j. D. Pulsifer, Esq, Reporter; Daniel W. Fessen-
den, Clerk.
WEDNESDAY, July II.
OXFORD CASES.
No. 39-0dham vs.. Buckfeld. Dismissed
No 4O-Hemmgway VS.. Grafton. In writing 80,
80, 80.
No. 41-Yeaton VS.. Chesley. Dismissed
No. 42-Freeland Howe vs.. Inhabitants of Wood
stock.
No. 43-Same and wife vs.. Same.
Two cases presented together. Case for injury up
on highway. The yerdicts for the plaintiffs in
both cases. for the husband $780, for the wife $780,
and the defendants filed motions and exceptions.
and wife, were both hurt August 26. 1876 by reason
OF the horse stepping his foot through the culvert.
The defence was that plaintiffs horse made the hole
IN which mis- foot was caught and that the ton had
no notice of the defect.
The plaintiffs position that the hole was made
by the horse OF one Curtis, an inhabitant of the
town, while driven by its owner at half past nine in
the forenoon that Curtis knew the time that bis
horse stepped through, but that the foot was with
Drawn and MS horse passed on without injury; that
py leaving bis horse and load of OATS as he should
have done, he might have warned travellers by put
selecrnan by going back half mile. or a surveyor
one mile; that he did not do either, but passed on
and IN two hours after, at III a. M the plaintiffs
travelling in contrary direction, not meeting Cur
It's because of stoppage at Locks Mills their horse
stepped into the hole and threw the plaintiffs out,
injuring both plaintiffs severely and rendering the
wife for long time senseless.
Foster, for the DEFENDANTS commended that on
plalntins own showing they were not entitled to re-
cover because the court should decide as matter of
law that the two hours notice to Curtis was not su
nclent notice to the town.
Libbey, J.-Time is not the only element.
foster-It the court hold that the reasonableness
OF the time is not question of law, and that the
Jury were authorized to find it sufficient, then we
tion of the road.
Virgin, J.-If Curtis knew that his horses foot
went into hole and he did not know exactly how
notice of the defect?
Bester5If he supposed the bottom of the hole was
sand and reached another defect between the tim
bers then he had no notice.
bisbeee with A. A. Strout for the plaintiffs.
No. 45-Littlewood VS.. Wardwell. Presented OH
Ludden for plaintiff Foster for defendant.
NO. 46-Jackson VS.. Whidden. On defendants for
new trial. Briefs in 80 days motion overrued.
No. 4S-Moses A. Mason VS.. Samuel d. Philbrook
On report. Writ OF entry for land in Bethel. The
plainth claims under mortgage, the defendant
oer sale IN bankruptcy and rays that the mortgage
and notes taken up and new ones fraudulently sub
sttuted, and that plaintiff is estopped to set it up
because he was present at the sale and that de-
PENDANT bid it OF and did not disclose any title or
lien In himself. The plaintiff commended that the
proceedings in bankruptcy were irregular and con-
yeyed no itie but regular they could not convey
land to the prejudice ofthe plaintiffs title.
X. A. Frye with Black a. Holt for plaintiff.
Hammons with Foster for the defendant.
No 49-Russell VS., Harlow. Plaintiffs motion for
new uIial. Same entry.
No. 5O-Dunn, app'lt from decision of Judge of
Probate, VS.. Kelley ct ais. Exceptions by defendant
who is to nile brief during term Plaintiff to have 30
days to reply.
No. 51-Foster VS.. Foster. Exceptions overrulei.
No. 59-Dailey, in equity, VS.. Fuller. Dismissed
from this docket.
No; 65-Daniel Allen ct al. vs.. T. F. GoOdenow ct
al. Submitted on briefs.
Frye, Cotton g. White Tor defendant.
No. 67-Benjamin Pulsifer VS.. Isaac Pulsifer. On
exceptions by plaintiff. A question arising on the
pieadings: Assumpsit for money had and received,
several notes OF hand. The defendan pleaded the
statute Of limitations The plaintiff replied, that the
bankruptcy and the defendant demurIed.
The Plaintiff contended that the fraud mentioned
in his replication took the out of the statute of
limitation under r. S., chap. 81 s 92.
The defendant commended thai the replication was
irresponsible TO the plea.
Record for plaintiff. Bolster for defendant.
No. 6s-James S. Jordan VS.. Calvin Record. Sub.
mitted on brief.
Hutchinson. Savage & Hale for plaintiff.
Frye, Cotton & White for defendant.
No. 70-G. w. Cotton ct ais VS.. VIM. F. Stand
wood. Submitted ON brief.
Frye, Cotton and White tor plaintiff
Record for defendant.
No. living, Judge, vs. Zackarah G. Rowe. Sub
mitted on brief.
n. Morrill, for plaintiff. Dunn for defendant.
No. 72.-Mary Winslow vs.. George Hanson Ex-
eeptions overr1led.
Hutchinson, Savage & Hale for plaintiff.
Frye, Gotten 81 White for defendant.
No. 73-Sumner VS.. Lake Dam Co. On brief
Ludden for plaintiff.
Frye, Cotton & White for defendants
No. 76-Moore VS.. Reed. Dismissed.
Hutchinson, Savage g. Hale for plaintiff
Frye, Cotton 81 White for defendant.
No. 77-Spates VS.. Pitcher. Motion overruled.
Ludden for plaintiff.
Frye, Cotton s. White for defendant.
No. 7s-Lewiston VS.. Harrison. On briet
Ludden. s. G. Strout.
No. 79-Ryerson VS.. Maine Central Motion over
ruled.
Hutchinson, Savage s. Hale.
Frye, Cotton g. White.
No. si-Littlefed vs. Coombs. On briefs.
Bennett. Moore.