The Portland daily press., 1878-07-19

HoN. JOHN APPLETON, Chief Justice, presiding
Hons. CHARLES W. WALTON, JONATHAN &.
DIcKERsoN, WILLIAM G. BARRows, WILLIAM
WRIT VRGIy, ARTEMAs LIBBEY, Associate JUS
tees
j. ID. Pulsifer, Esq, Reporter; Daniel w. Fessen-
den, Clerk.
WEDNESDAY, July IS.
ANDRosooGGIN CASES.
No. 74-Benjamin Hill VS.. Lucius Packard. Sub
mitted on brief
N. Morrillfor plaintiff. Wing for defendant.
No. 75@M. S. Dunbar vs.. Daniel W. Garcelon In
writing 80, 80, 90.
Hutchinson, Savage & Hale for plaintiff.
Reade with Frye, Cotton 81 White for defendant.
No. S2-Rebecca S. Parker VS.. inhabitants Of Dur
ham.
Argued by Storer in favor of plaintiffs exceptions
Hutchinson, Savage & Hale for defendants.
No. S3-John S. Banks VS.. H. II. Beacham.
Frye, Cotton and White tor plaintiff.
Hutchinson, Savage & Hale for defendant.
No. si-yosiah G. Coburn VS.. H. G. Thayer. Sub
mitted on briet
Frye, Cotton & White for plaintiff.
Hutchinson, Savage q Hale for defendant.
No. s5-Benjamin f. Getchell VS.. Patrio Many
on report. Assumpsit for labor performed by Henry
Fahey by virtue of an assignment of $l5 per month
for six months. The assignment was signed and
sealed by Fahey and constituted Getchel his attor-
ney in the premises.
The case states that defendant resisted ) because
the contract of hiring between Fahey and defendant
was oral and for an indefinite time; and (0 because
by assignment the plaintiff is precluded from MAIN
tanning the action. He commended further in argu-
ment that an entire demand could not be split up by
its owner, portion Of the debt is not assgnable at
common law, and is not made SO by statute of 1874
Hutchinson, Savage g. Hale for plaintiff.
Carter with Frye, Cotton & White for defendant.
No. ss-Geo. A. WEIGH in eq. vs. Samuel Stearns
ct al. Argued.
J.w. Mitchell & Wing for plaintiff.
Hutchinson, Savage & Hale for defendant
No. S9-John Anger ct al. VS.. William Courter
and trustees.
Mitchell for plaintiff.
Reade for principal defendant
Frye, Cotton g. White for trustees.
Hutchinson, Savage & Hale for assignee.
No. 90-State VS.. Daniel W.. Goss. Indictment
collector of taxes of the town Mnot for embezzle-
ment of 1880. The defendant demurred to the in
dictment on the ground that it did not contain alle
cations sufficient to show the defendant public Off
Ger "de jare," but only "de Tdcto" The presiding
justice overruled the demurrer and the verdict was
guilty. The evidence showed that he was elected
gave bonds and acted as collector of taxes. The
government introduced the following return of the
warrant for the town meeting at which the defendant
was elected:
"By standing vote of the town we have notified
and war; ed the inhabitants OF said town, qualified
to vote in town affairs to assemble at the time and
place and for the purpose therein mentioned by post
ing up copies of said warrant at [&c i being public
and conspicuous places in said town on lScl being
seven days before said meeting" Signed by the
selectmen of Minot. The points of counsel may be
thrown into dialogue.
Savage-Your Indictment Is drawn against de
Jdct0 officer, and not an officer de jure.
White-What oft?
Savage-An officer in the statute means legal
officer,
white-As matter of definition the term "offcer"
embraces both sorts, de iure and de fdcto But the
IN ina, rgara ioows statute an1 covers
that Gess was legally elected constable.
20 back to the creation. We must stop somewhere.
Sayage-Yes, somewhere The law requires that
hS% sase saTs roa T6a
selectmen were authorized to serve and return the
warrant.
White No proof of it and no proof to the contrary
The presumption is that all things were correctly
done, according to r.. S. C. 8. ST.. In general We
maintain that the distinction between de fdcto and
de re is not open to you under the law or under the
demurrer under the evidence AMI if it is that the
defendant de iare officer.
Sayage-We maintain the contrary.
No. 9l-State VS.. w. E. Clark Exceptions over
ruled.
White, County Attorney.
Hutchinson, Savage g. Hale for def.
No. estate VS.. Michael A. Ward. Submitted on
briefs.
Same counsel.
No. 93-Ebenezer Bragdon, exr. VS.. VIM. I. Har-
mon Submitted on brief.
Moore for plaintiff.
Hutchinson, Savage g. Hale for deft.
YORK CAsRs.
No; 1Ol-Horsee woodman vs.. John S. Livingston.
Eastman for plf Burbank & Derby for deft
No. 1O9-Elizabeth M. Dixon, complainant, vs.
Joseph ID. Eaton, admr. Argued.
Yeaton for plf. Copeland for deft.
No. 110-Same VS.. same. Same entry.
No. 111-Farmington Savings Bank vs.. Charles w
Fall. In writing 60, 80, 80.
No.115-Eben N. Highley vs.. William II. Written
In writing 60, 80. 80.
Copeland for plf. VIM. Emery for deft.
No. r13-Israe Hill ct al. VS.. Allemannia Fire In
surance Co. The verdict was for the plaintiff for
$2l3 The plaintiffs ask to have it set aside for in
adequacy. BE wants $500; says his policy was $500
and the premises destroyed.
Luques for plf. Goodwin & Lunt for defts.