The Portland daily press., 1880-08-05
Supreme Judicial Court.

July Law Term, $780,
wEDNEsDAy.-The law court adjourned finally
to-day. The following decisions were announced.
FRANKLIN COUNTY.
Sarah f. Bartlett ct ais VS.. Washington Good
win. Motion and exceptions by defendant overruled.
Whitcomb S. G. Belcher.
OXFORD COUNTY.
Alonzo X. Dimock VS.. Frank L. Willis. Motion
by plaintiff for new trial. Motion overruled
Benson with Swasey. Foster.
ANDRoscoGGIN COUNTY.
Atlantic Fire ms. Co. VS.. Samuel Moody ct al. Re-
port discharged.
Arthur Sands VS.. n. McLewis. Motion by plaintiff
oyerrued. Judgment on the verdict
Nee MsLeWs Vs arthur Sands Motion by de
PENDANT sustained unless plaintiff will remit all over
Wing g. Wing Hutchinson Savage.
syoRK COUNTY.
stephen Joy vs. Inhabitants of Kennebunk. Re-
port discharged.
2apley. Goodwin q Lunt.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
Charles j. Mccarthy VS.. Canselo Winship ct al.
n. &H. b. Cleayes-B. Bradbury.
Thomas, Jr and Ray
wm L. Prince petr vs. VIM. b. Slillin. Decree
below by Judge Peters affirmed with costs.
a. w. Coombs for petr. CGffords.
John Weber ct al. VS.. Reuben B. Dunn ct al.
aaotion and exceptions overruled.
webb-Pillsbury. Bakers
Charles E. Minor vs. c. E. Staples Judgment for
defendant.
Mattocks Putnam.
Charles p Mattocks, assignee. vs.. George II.
Chadwick. Exceptions sustained: New trial granted.
Nattocks. ID. II. Drummond
State vs. Patrick Hurley Convicted of arson Ex-
eeptioas oyerruled: Judgment for State.
Attorney General for State CGffords.
KENSEBEC COUNTY.
Inhabitants of Pittston VS.. Inhabitants of Jetfer
FescriDt by Libbey Upon the question of res
idence Of the pauper for five consecutive years in
the plaintiff town the evidence was conflicting. 1t
was a question of the credibity of witnesses. The
evidence does not SO preponderate in favor OF the
verdict on the motion. There was no exception to
the airmance of the verdict without answers by the
iury to the questions submitted to them. The verdict
answers fully the issue presented by the peadngs.
The verdict cannot be set aside on motion because
the Jury did not answer the questions.
Motion overruled. Judgment on the verdict.
ANDRosCoGGIN COUNTY.
Henry D. Hail. admr. in equity, John H. Otis
ct ais.
Rescript by Walton, j. 1t is the oprion of the
Court that the will of Daniel E. Hall to his
surviving brothers and sisters all that was left of
his estate at the of his widow, Annie E. Hail.
and that his administrator entitled to the
sion of all that portion of said Daniel E. Halls
tate including the proceeds of property sold by his
widow. which had not been expended at the time of
her decease. Decease accordingly No costs for
spondents Plaintiffs costs to be charged in his adj
sniBistration account, and audited by the judge of
probate.
al.
RescriDt by Appleton, q. J.-IhlS case has been
tried by jury under instructions to which no ex
ceptions have been taken. The jury and heard
the witnesses. They were the constituted tribunal
to determine the facts in dispute. No sufficient
reason is given for interfering with their conclu-
soDs
Motion overruled.
OXFORD COUNTY.
Addison Monk VS.. VIM. Packard ct ais.
Rescript by Virgin, 1.-The burial ground described
in this is not in law nuisance. The human con-
tents of those graves cannot offend the in
legal point of view.. To become nuisance the
graves their contents must be such in their effect
as naturally to interfere with the ordinary comfort
ience must be something more than fancy, delicacy
or fastdiousness." The verdict is against law and
must be set aside.
Motion sustained. New trial granted.
Hersey-Foster. Black & Hall.
YORK COUNTY.
Eben n. Higley VS.. VIM. H. Written.
ReScript by Virgin IA personal easement is
never TO be presumed when the clause in the deed
creating reservng the easement fairly be
creating reserYng it need not contain words OF
inheritance. Goddard's Easement (Bennett's Ed
80. The deed to Susan Flye gave her, not per-
sonal right simply but an easement aVpurtenant to
the premises. Plaintiff nonsuit.
Copeland. Emery.
FRANKLIN COUNTY.
Andrew T. Tuck VS.. Leander b, Stoyell.
RcscTipt by Symonds, J.-lt is the opinion of the
Court that no error appears in the ruling of the
presiding judge allowing the plaintiff against the
affection of defendant, 10 give he whole converse
ton with the defendants brother part of which
had aireaty been stated in answer to interrogato-
ries rom the gdefendaut. The testimony of the
physicians to the reception of which exceptions
taken, was legally admissible.
Exceptions overruled