The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1883-03-03
Citu Solicitors Ranor1

1
Of the last annual report Feb. %, 1882, the fol.
| lowing cases were pending in court:
Bridget Weleh VS.. the City of Portland.
Solomon r. Hawes Va. same.
Thomas @ Elwell vs.. same.
State by indictment VS.. same
Sylvan Shrrtleh vs.. same.
City of Portland vs. VIM. II. Staples.
Same vs.. Atlantic & st. Lawrence Railroad Conn
pany.
Same vs.. Same.
Since the date of the last report the follow
| ing suits have been commenced
Olive s. Waite vs.. the City of Portland.
The City CT Bath vs.. same.
William A. Alien vs.. same.
NathaDial g. Davis same.
Bridget WEIGH VS.. the City of Portland
is an action to recover for personal
injuries sustained by reason of an alleged de-
feet on Cotton street The case was tried at
the May term, 1881, of the Superior Court.
The jury disagreed. 1t is assigned for trial
again at the next April term.
Solomon r. Halves VS.. the City of Portland
This case was entered at the April term, 1881,
of the Supreme Judicial Court but has not yet
been assigned for trial. Tits an action for in
juries resulting from an alleged defect on Oak
street. This was an action for the recovery Ct
damages sustained JAN 81, 1888, by reason of
an alleged defect in Stroudwater bridge. Both
bones of one of the plaintiffs legs were broken.
1t was deemed for the best interest of the city
to give plaintiff Judgment for $75 and costs of
$1367 !.
State by Indictment VS.. The City Of Port
land. This is an indictment against the city
presented at the September term, 1881 of the
Superior Court, for creating nuisance by de-
posting filth at the out fall of what is known
as the Union street sewer near Union wharf
AT the last May term of the Superior court
demurrer was filed by the city to the indlct-
ment with permission to plead over, Argu-
ments in favor of the demurrer were made at
the Law Court last July. A decision has since
been rendered overriding the demurrer. The
case now stands for trial The decision of the
court in this case is of the highe importance
to the city with reference to all cases OF this
nature. The court decides that municipal
corporation is liable TO an indictment ii it SO
constructs its public sewers that the ont fall
thereof create public nuisance provided the
Accommodations of filth thence proceeding are
not promptly rem we'd. The city is bound to
remove any accumulation of filth created by
one of It's sewers whenever they are preiudicial
to public health or any other public right.
Such accommodations must be removed by dredg-
ing or some other effectual mode.
Sylvan ShHrtleff VS.. The City of Portland,
This is an action for damages resulting from
an alleged accumulation of sewer deposits un-
der the buildings and in the dock OF the plain
tiff. The alleged cause in this and the aJove
case is substantially the same. This case has
not yet been tried. 1t is of vital importance
that some detihite action he Immediately AIKEN
by the city which will not only effectually dis
pose Of this and other kindred cases, but will
prevent any future litigation of the same ma
ture. The decision of the court above referred
to, renders some action by the city imperative.
The City of Portland VS.. VIM. x. Staples
This was an action of assumpsit for rent due
the city. Defendant was defaulted and i1dg-
ment for $27 go and costs of 1924 entered for
the city.
The City of Portland VS.. The Atlantic & St.
Lawrence Railroad Co.
Both actions were for the violation by the
company of the agreement between the city
and defendant company, dated Oct. 81, 1868.
The history of this matter was SO clearly given
by Mayor Libby in his address that it is need
less for me TO give detailed statement of 1t
here. The first action was brought for the de-
fault in the payment of the semi-annual inter-
est due in May, 1881; the second for non-pay-
ment of the interest in November, 1881. The
principle involved in both cases is identical.
1t was not considered necessary to bring any
further actions for failure to pay subsequent
interest until decision was rendered upon the
first case This case was reported at the last
April term of the Supreme Judicial Court and
argued before the Law Court last July. A de-
csion in favor of the city has been given BY
the court and judgment entered for The full
amount of interest aud costs, in all S25, 1855.
Satisfactory assurance has been given by the
company that the above sum will at once be
paid and the whole controversy settled without
"pecuniary toss or detrmentp TO the city aud
III accordance with the decision of the court.
Olive s. Waite VS.. The City of Portland
This is an action for damages sustained by
reason of an alleged defect in the Sidewalk in
front of the City Building. 1t has not yet
been assigned for trial
The City of Bath VS.. The Inhabitants Of
Portland.-This is an action for expenses In
Cured for support OF a panper named Alice
Cobb whose legal settlement it is alleged was
in Portland. 1t wss entered at the last De-
cember term of the Supreme Judicial Court
April.
William A. Allen VS.. The City of Portland.
This is an action for injuries sustained by
reason of an alleged defect on Kennebec
street. 1t was entered at tbs last January
term of the Supreme JudicialsCourt and has
not yet been reached for trial.
Nathaniel @. Davis VS.. The City of Portland.
-fhls is an action for damages arising from
practically the same state of facts alleged in
the case OF Sylvan ShurLleff VS.. The City of
Portland above referred TO. The case has just
been Commenced, and has not yet been en-.
tered in court.
La 1881 proceedings by bill in equity were
commenced in New Hampshire against the
1ortldnu anu OgC 0nSDurS railroad Dy pond
holders residing in New York and owning
second mortgage bonds of the road to the
amount Of $8000e The action was for
foreclosure of that part of the road situated in
New Hampshire. To the original bill the
company demurred. Arguments on the de-
murrer were made in Octobt +, 1881, and de-
cision sustaining the demurrer was received
last June. Leave to amend, by filing new
bill against the company, seeking the same
end was given, An answer has been fled by
the company, and the case is still pending in
court. Nothing is required of the city at pres
ent in the premises IL may be necessary for
the city to intervene at some future time to
protect it's interests.
The Union Mutual Life Insurance Company
has refused to pay $2150 assessed by the city on
its personal property, valued at 100000. The
company claim that it is,not legally bound to
pay the tax. An action will be commenced
Immediately fer the sum assessed.
Our Schools.
Such was the title of DIR. g. o. Files's lee