The Portland daily press., 1878-07-22
Supreme JudiciaI Court.

Wester1s District-July Lao Term
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.
CUMBERLAND CASES.
SATURDAY, July 90.
No. 133-Union National Bank vs. Bartlett Adams
ct al Dismissed.
Drummond for plaintiff.
Strout g. Holmes for defendant
No. 13S-Ezra Carter, Jr., in equity vs. Luther G.
Porter. Writing 60, 80, 30.
Drummond for plaintiff.
Mattocks for defendant
No. l4+-Samuel Chase We. John M. Gould. Dis.
missed.
Larrabee for plaintiff.
Strout g. Holmes for defendant.
No. 147-Ann E. Pendexter ct al. VS.. David B.
Libby ct al. Dismissed
b. ID. Verrill for plaintiff.
Strout g. Gage for defendant.
No. lt9-Bridget Dunphy, in eq. VS.. John Dunphy
ct al. Plaintiffs argument in, 80, 10.
strout & Gage for defendant.
No. 150-Same.
No, 15S-Theodore S. Mcclellan vs. Nathaniel n
worthley. Writing 80, 80, 80.
No. 162-E. Philips Blake, admir- vs. Maine Central
Railroad. Plaintiffs argument in, 80, Is.
Pillsbury 81 Webb for plaintiff
DIulilnouu AOr uelenuanC
No. l63-Catherine How, admir-. Vs. Maine Central
Nep Entries.
No. 166-Thomas L. Smith w. James Bradley &
Putnam for plaintiff.
N. & II. B. Ceaves for defendants.
No. 167-Diantha Woodside vs. Owen Howard ct
ais Trespass to land and assault and battery Defence
entry of premises and removal Of plaintiff under
wit of possession. Plaintiff saysI was occupying I'M
der verbal license OF my husband and twas not named
defendant in the writ of possession.
Defendant says, that preeept against the husband
authorized the removal OF the wife. Other points
were taken.
Orr for plaintiff. Thompson for defendants.
No. 16S-Sewall c. Strout ct ais. VS.. Inhabitants of
Otisfeld. On report. Writ of entry. Plaintiffs
claim under mortgage from Joseph s. Maybury,
dated May 10, 1876. The defendants claim under
writ April Is, 1874. Plaintiffs say the attachment
dissolved by change of writ from special action
Of the case to trover If mot dissolved that the levy
es:ed. being tax payers on real estate in town.
S. c. Strout for plaintiffs.
Holmes for defendants
No. I70-Silas II. McAlpine VS.. Joseph Fletcher.
Exceptions. The writ was dated December 10, 1877,
the defendants real estate attached March 20, 1873
and service made On defendant March %, 1873,
and the writ entered April term, 1878. The Defend
ant moved to dismiss because it appeared that the
writ should have been returnabe on the I'd Tuesday
of January, 1878.
The presiding justice sustained the motion and the
plaintiff filed exceptions.
The plaintiff contended that the objection should
have been taken by plea in abatement and not by
motion, and that the date immaterial, the SER
vice being the important date and that the plaintiff
had the right to jump term:
The defendant commended that the statute form of
the writ and the practice forbade the jumping OF
term.
G. W. verrill fer plaintiff
Drummond for defendant.
No. 171-ox.ord Club vs. j. H. Maynadier. In
writing.
StrouI g. Holmes.
No. 172-Franklin Wharf Co. vs.. City of Portland.
Exceptions. Writing 60, 80, so.
Mattocks for plaintiff
Reed with Cleaves for city.
No. 173-Susan D. H. Boyd VS.. Samuel L. Carle-
band of plaintiff owned four acres of land in Portland
and aliened the same which was afterwards divided
into some twenty house lots, many Of which were
admitting that she has right Of dover in the lot
built upon and occupied by him, and to the benefit
OF the increased value of the land independent of
Improvement made upon it, claims that she is not
entitled to benefit of Improvements made upon this
lot by him on the increased value Of this lot by
ofmprovement OF the other lots within the four
by other persons. The plaintiff admits that she is
not entitled TO the benefit OF improvements made
this very lot but claims that she entitled to the
increased value OF this lot by reason OF improvements
on the other lots.
The question raised is res integra, perhaps.
n. Webb for plaintiff. hand for defendant
No. 174-Charles II. Pearson ct ux., residents Of
Cuba, We. City of Portland. verdict was rendered
in favor of the plaintiff wife for $1,000 for injury from
defective highway. A question was reserved fol
the defense The defendant at the trial relied upon
the statute OF 1872, Oh. "a, which precuded the
coyery for such damage, provided it done to OF
claimed by any person who was at the time resi-.
dent of any country where damage done under SINH
lar circumstances, is not recoverable by the laws Of
said country"
The plaintiffs counsel contended that the statute
unconstitutional when applied to citizens OF the
United States, residents in foreign country and
cited U. S. Constitution Article 4, q and the I4th
amendment.
Strout & Gage for plaintiff.
H. b. CleaVes, Solicitor, for city.
No. 177-F. L. Burnham VS.. Abel Learned. Plain
tiffs argument in, 60. 80.
Thonpso for plaintiff. Coombs for defendant.
No. 17S-LemueI Cobb, in equity, VS.. Catharne
Dyer ct al Argued.
5tIout g. Gage tor plaintiff.
Strout g. Holmes for defendants
No. 179-William W. Grows VS.. Maine Contra
Railroad. Writing Is, 30.
f. Adams. Drummond.
No. 1sJ-Encs G. Soue VS.. Greeleat Cilley. Ex
cepuons oyerIuled.
Hale for plaintiff. Cilley for defendant.
No. 1s2-Alvin DeeriIg VS.. Patrick O'Malley ct ais
Excepto overruled.
Holden tor plaintiff
Butler & Libby for defendants.
No. 1s3-Eliza HINT vs.. Joseph Simpson.
writing go, 60, 80.
MatIocks tor plaintiff. Orr for defendant.
No. 1s6-Thomas L. Smith VS.. Mary E. Bradle.
Exceptions overruled.
RPutnam for plaintiff
Cleaves q Cleaves for defendant