The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1879-04-28
Supreme J udicial Court.
BEFORE JUDGE VIRGIN.

BEFORE JUDGE VIRGIN.
SATURDAY.-In re Robinson G. Edwards, libellant
for divorce, VS.. Phebe G. Edwards. Petition by the
selecmen of Otisfed to annul and vacate decree of
divorce.
On the 18th day of March last Robinson G. Ed
wards of otsfeld filed in this court libel for divorce
against Phebe G. Edwards his wife, on the ground of
adultery. Service was made the libellee by giving
her in band copy Of the libel. She did not appear
and on the seventh day of this term er parte hear
ing was had and divorce was decreed on testimony
OF Robinson G. Edwards. These petitioners claimed
to have the decree vacated and annulled on the
grouni that at the time of the fling the ILL and OF
the service Of the and at the time Of the hear
ing, Phebe c. Edwards was and for three years prior
has been insane and not legally or morally responsible
for her acts and behavior and Incapable OF managing
her affairs; that by reason of her mental condition
she incat aciated from understanding the libel;
that Robinson G. Edwards and his attorney well
know ng be facts of Insanity designedy suppressed
and ncea ed it, and thus obtained the divorce by
the suppression of ma erial fact.
1t appears by the testimony that Mrs. Edwards
was Committed 10 the Insane Asylum, A pril 18th
1876, where she remained nine months; that SINCE
that she been SO violent as before but is
still insane and al times has been confined by her
husband in her bedroom with the windows barred
and duor fastened. After the evidence on the part
OF the petitioners was out the counsel for Mr.. I'd
wards. Mr.. otrout who was not counsel 10 the hear
ing upon the libel, admitted that at the time of this
hearing the testimony S00WS MIS- Edwards to have
been Inc ane, but that she not insane at the time
the a0ullerous acts we've ommitled at the time
of the service Of the bill that Mr.. Edwards and his
attorney acted in perfect good faith, but that Mr..
Edwards was willing the decree should be annulIcd
and vacated that they proposed to for the ap-
pointmeDt Of a euIdian ad Item and have further
hearing upon the libel. The decree of divorce was
tbereupon vacated and annuled and the case con-
tinued until the next October term.
Butler LIBBY tor petitioners.
sc. Strout-H. M. Sylvester for Edwards.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
VIM. W. Grows VS.. Maine Central Railroad Co.
Rescript-Ibe Plaintiffs attempt, when one hun
dred feet from the crossing, to in front OF de-
tenoaDps passenger train which he raw coming
thIty-ei hit rods distant, was contributory Degli-
gence on his part The requested instructions were
therefore Immaterial Whether the way was one re-
quiring statute signals was mmaterial the ques-
ton of reckless driving the engineer and the speed
OF the train. Accepting the plaintiffs testimony IN
relation TO the rea,ive distances Of himself and the
train from The crossing and theit ing there, is
dIsproves that his horse was frightened or that he
went faster than his Usual gait of six miles
per hour. If presiding justice inadvertently mis-
time call his atteb ton to it, that it may then and
there be corrected. Such an inadvertent misstate-
ment is not the expression Of an opinion upon is
of iact arising in the case within the meaning of
statute OF 1874, chap. %.
Motion anu exceptions oyerrued.
YORK COUNTY.
Joseph F. Waterhouse vs. Gloucester Fire Ins. Co.
ReScript- On a policy of insurance against fire
stpulaing ST this policy should be assigned without
the written consent of the company, the liability Of
the con- Lany shall tbereupOn cease and determine,
and This policy shall be null and void no action can
be maintained under the common law by an
assignee when The assignment is made W thout tue
written consent OF The company. No statute in this
state authorizes such action.
Plaintiff non-sut.
FRANKLIN COUNTY.
State of Maine VS.. Frederick.
Rescript-Cbapter 1877 OF the laws of 1877, making
cerfe copy Of the testimony of witness as taken
by court steDographer in the sworn performance OF
his official DUTY legal evidence TO prove the testi
mony of such witness whenever proof of the same is
relevant in case on trial. and thereby placing such
copy tie footing Of otter legal documentary evil
dence, is lot in coDtravention OF Article 6, clause
BOT tie Constitution of aine, which gives the ac-
the witnesses against MIN. Such certified copy Of
the testimony given by witness called by the de-
PENDANT at ioTmer trial OF Indictment for an as
saut and bal terry in which the jury disagreed is
celvabe to mpeach the testimony of such wtsess at
the second uiaL Proof that the defendant fed when
the officer went to arrest him is competent evil
dence without proof that the defendant had been in
formed that he was TO be arrested on This identical
charge.
Exceptions oyerruled,
KNOX COUNTY.
George H. Kuhn ct als. vs. VIM. A. Farnsworth
ReScript-H. K. and his wife gave O deed ola
farm which at the time Of The conveyance was inter-
sected by county road four rods wide. The deed
conf all ed covenants OF warranty of freedom om in
cumoraDces The description of the tract conveyed
an elaborate one, by monuments, courses and
distances, of the exterior lines of the farm terminal
ing at 1.-THE frs mentioned bounds, containing one
hundred and twenty-five acres and sixty-four rods
ana no more, exclusive of the county road fur rods
wide through he above premises, which is reserved
to the said 81. K" Held that here was no valid ex-
ceploD reserva tiou OF The fee in the lands
tanned the county road where it crossed the iarm
but that the fee in the same passed to the grantee
the easement only being excluded in order TO elieye
the grantor Tom hi covenant against membranes
which would otherwise be broken by the existence
Q, The road he phrase exclusive o' in the cOnnec
ton which il there stands, is equivalent be
title to nor possession of the locus.