The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1881-10-24
superior Court.


OCTOBER CIVIL TERM, 1881, BEFORE JUDGE BON
NEY.
FRIDAY-Charles H. Carpenter VS.. William II.
Dresser. In February, 1878, the plaintiff picture
dealer in New York, wrote to Morgan g. Davenport,
suctioneers in this city, to hire store for him and
he would send stock of oil paintings and silver
ware for them to sell at auction. Tine store was
hired, silver ware sold for few days. when the re-
mainder packed in ready to be reshipped to
New York. The sale of pictures was to commence on
Intervening of the 49, On the afternoon of the 26th
while Davenport was in charge of the store, an at
tachment was made and keeper put in the store
on writ in favor of Charles G. Goodwin against
Morgan Davenport. The plaintiff testified that
upon his return to the store he found all the goods
including the silver-ware under attachment, and
was so told by the keeper that he then left and has
not had the goods since; that they were his goods
and that the value of the oil paintings and frames
thirty in number, was about $1,000, and the silver
ware about $500.
The deputy sheriff who made the attachment
testified that he attached only the paintings and the
frames and did not attach the silver ware. The
! keeper corroborates him and denies that he told
Carpenter or anyone that the silver ware was at
tached.
Mr. Allen, of the firm of F. o. Bailey s. Co., Mr..
Adolph Roselle and cyrus F. Davis, all of whom had
examined the paintings and frames, testified that
both the frames and paintings were of the cheapest
kind: that the frames were of dutch gilt or
Metal leaf" and pictures and frames together
were worth not over three to six dollars each, ac-
cording to size.
The next day after the keeper put in the
sheriff released the attachment and left the goods
as he claimed in good condition when he attached
them 1t was claimed at former trial of this case
that that fact could be shown in mitigation of dam
ages. This being question, the Court, for the
purpose of having it determined, so ruled, and I'M
der that ruling the jury returned verdict for the
plaintiff for $75. The was carried to the full
court. and it was held that ian officer who wrong
fully attaches and takes actual possession of goods
cannot show in action against him by the owner,
that on the day after the attachment he rendered to
the owner return of the property in the same con-
dition as when attached. He cannot return the
property in mitigation of damages for the taking
AGAINST the owners CONSENT
Under this rule the only question for the jury at
this trial was what property was attached and what
was its fair market value at the time of the attach
ment.
The jury found specially that the silver ware was
not attached and rendered agerdict for the plain
tiff for S4S3.27 the value of the pictures with in
terest from the time of the attachment
NJ p. Frank-Nathan Ceaves for plff.
Strout & Holmes for delft.
The Jury was excused finally.
A. P. Brown VS.. True j. RingdaD. Tried by the
Court without jury. Action on an account an
nexed for board. Defendant fled account in set
off. Decision for the plaintiff for $35.57.
Fnoch Knight for p1ff G. M. Seiders for deft.
Court adjourned until Tuesday afternoon next.