The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1886-05-29
YORK COUNTY S. ). COURT.
BEFORE JUDGE EMERY.

ALFRED, Thursday, May 81.
William Libby VS.. Austin N. Pettengill, and Ru-
Jus Libby VS. AUSTIN n peeng A ela0e Oh
Both cases tried together. The parties reside in
Berwick. The plaintiffs are father and son, and
in the winter Of 1885 lived in the same house. The
son, in February, purchased of the defendant GER
tain household goods, giving therefor as the de-
PENDANT claimed, note or contract, by the terms
of which the goods were to remain the property
of the defendant until paid for. AS the goods
were not paid for according to the terms OF the
contract, the defendant, in September last, urged
payment and was, as he claimed, directed by the
wife of the son, to take the goods away, as they
could not pay for them which defendant t preceeah
returned for the balance, when.he was forDldden
by direction of the father to enter the house The
purchased the goods absolutely, and denied that
the trade was as claimed by the defendant, and
denied his signature to the contract, and CLAIMED
that the defendant was never directed TO take
away the goods, and that he entered the mouse
and proceeded to remove them after having Deel
forbidden to touch them Paat nun iS asI a
guage and violently pushed the wlie OF tne iatn ~
while removing the goods from the mouse. for
lions 10 Recover damage. Verdict for the defend
ant in both cases.
w. S. Pierce, for pltff. ,,,,.. Co.. ,at+
Boston & Maine Railroad, petitioner for increase
of damages and Orchard Beach Railroad Compa-
nv petifioner for increase of damages IneSe
two cases, which are tried together, are appears
from decisions of the County connisslo ni ~ ,;
awarding damages on the location u q mnayi ~
the first case across the main trach oi le rI
& Maine railroad, at point IN inc toWn Vi Olu
Orchard about two and half miles from lne pace
station and in the second case the locaIlon 0l tne
same Way across the track OF the Orchard beacn
Railroad Company, at point between me ABOVE
also wifhin the limits of the town of Old Orchard.
A. the October session, 1888, of the County
commissioners on petition OF A u. frentlSS et
ais the County Commissioners made reports To-
eating the highway as above, and awarding dam
ages at $50 in the case OF the b, q M, and $50 IN
tie case ofIthe o. B. r. r. Co. Appeals were tax
en- by both the Boston g. Maine railroad ana the
Orchard Reach Railroad Company, on the queS-
fion Of location and damages. AT the september
term. 1884, of the S. j. Court, the judgment OF
Az the May term, 1885, motion to dismiss was
fled by the counsel for compliments which was
sustained by Judge Haskell, but overruled by the
Law Court and the cases now come back for trial
upon the question of damages.
On trial.
c. Fairfield and Judge Tapley, for respondent.
FRIDAY, May 49,
In the case of Boston & Maine railroad, appel
lants from decision of County Commissioners,
awarding damages on the laying out of way, the
jury assessed the damages at 500 which was the
amount of the original award by the County Com
missioners The following is special question
returned: sat the time Of the location of the
way across appellants railroad by the County
commissioners. was there already at the same
crossing public way established by adverse use
ior over twenty years, and if so, how wide? Ans
Wer-Yes; 25 feet.
ny, appellant from decision of the County Com
mlssloners awarding damages for tie laying out
9 OF, way, the jury assessed the DIN ages at $50
AhiS also was the amount of the original award