The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1888-01-30
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
BEFORE JUDGE HASKELL

after the disposition of several interIocutorY mat
very busy one, occupied IL days
The following rescripts have been received:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
State vs. William j. Craig appellant
Rescrfpt by Haskell, 1.-THE act of 1885, chap.
275, prohibits the destruction of Holsters within
this State, even though taken or caught more than
a marine league from the shore.
That act Is not unconstitutional by reason of
the penalties imposed by it.
The act OF 1885, chap. 25S is not unconstitu-
tional by reason Of the enlarged jurisdiction Civ
en- to magistrates under 1t.
A magistrate is not disqualified by reason of in
terest in cases where a part of the penalty goes
to the municipality in which he is resident and
State VS.. Bernard Devine, appellant.
Rescript by Haskell, J.-Thfs complaint is suffi-
State VS.. Henry f. Conwell.
Rescript by Haskell. IA prior conviction is
certificate of decision was received from the Law
Court in the cause.
Charles r. Milliken ct ais. in equity VS.. Kate II.
Rescript by Haskell, ia defence that may be
interp0sed In an action at law cannot be invoked
as a cause for relief in equity.
YORK COUNTY.
State, by William e. Towne, libellant, VS.. intox-
icating liquors claimed by Charles III. Walker.
Rescrtpt by Haskell, J.-Libels against liquors
seized on search warrants are separate proceed
ings from the search and seizure process.
Such hbels must be filed with the magistrate
before whom the search warrant upon which the
1t need not have been returned.
Such warrant, when issued by trial Justice
must be made returnable before any trial justice
The libel in this case AYERS the search and seIz-
ure warrant to have been issued by the magis
trate with whom the libel was fled
The law required i to be returnable before
himself as wen as all other trial justices in the
that il was returnabe before himself, and Shows
a case within his jurisdiction. In other respects
also, the libel is sufficient.
ANDRoscoGGD COUNTY.
Z. Stanley Hart vs. Fidelia G. Mcclellan
Rescrtpt 6y Haskell J.-Assumpsit against the
lna9fser OF negotiable promissory note payable
A careful consideration Of the evidence fails to
show legal notice TO the defendant of the dis
honor of the note.
to post of1ice IN the city of defendants resi-
dence, nor, as the authorities cited by defend
eence used TO ascertain the defendsntis nro Ie
address. judgment for defendants
Maine BENEFIT Association VS.. George Hamilton
Rescrtpt By Haskell, 1.-THE exceptions are pre-
maturely brought to the Law Court. The decree
below was nterlocutory, and exceptions should
not be brought to the Law Court until the final
decree has been entered, except in such cases as
will not admit of that delay.
Peabodyvs. William H. Small, admir-
Rescrtpt By Haskell, THE appeal in this case
was properly taken, and the evidence discloses
no error in the decree of the probate court.
FRANKLIN FoUNTY.
Pembroke s. Marsh vs. Otis Hayford
Rescript by Haskell 1.-THE owner OF a prom
fssory note, payable to the order of another and
not Endorsed by him, cannot maintain an action at
law upon the same against the maker in his own
name. II such owner of the note sell and deliver
the same and guarantee the payment of it, with
out the request, assent or knowledge of the
maker and be compelled to pay his guaranty. he
cannot maintain an action for money paid to the
makers use against him.
KENNEBEC COUNTY.
City Of Augusta VS.. inhabitants of Mercer.
Rescrfpt By Haskell, J.-Under the act of 1875
chapter Fl, supplies furnished to relieve the dis
tress of asoldie to operate pauper supplies and
prevent his gaining, new pauper settlement
occasioned sin consequence of an ,lIinrv snstain
ed in the services"
The evidence authorized the jury 10 find that
the supplies furnished by plaintiff il, June, $780,
were not Of this character, and, therefore, oper-
ated to interrupt five consecutive years residence
ing of the supplies sued for. and furnished in
March and April, 1885. The act Of 1876 par
tally and the act of 1885 completely save the
exception contained In it, removed pauper dis
abilities from soldiers whose distress calls for re-
lief under the pauper laws of the State. Under
either act, supplies furnished to relieve soldier
charged with his legal settlement.
The charge OF the presiding judge so declared
dict.
KNOX COUNTY.
Medora G. Perkins vs. Thomas w. Hix, Adj
RescYspt by Haskell 1.-THE issue raised by the
pleadngs is whether the defendant individually
promised 70 pay the plaintiffs claim
The verdict finds promise by the defendants
interstate and the evidence supports the verdict
and not the declaration.
promise laid was by the defendants intestate.
We think the evidence sustans the verdict and
that substantial justice does not require new
We therefore advise the court below to grant
suitable amendments OF the writ TO sustain the
verdict neither party to recover costs. Doherty
VS.. Dolan, 60 Me. 81.
This being done, motion and exceptions over
ruled otherwise sustained.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
Sup. Iud. Court, w. Dist, July IT, 1887.
Joseph z. Nugent VS.. The Boston, Concord g.
Montreal Railroad.
Rescrfpt On Virgin, jim the trial of an action
on the ease against q railroad corporation for a
personal injury resulting from the alleged defect
the question of contributory negligence, though
depending upon undisputed facts is properly sub
mitted TO the jury, when intelligent, fair-minded
persons may reasonably arrive at different con-
A railroad corporation, over a section of whose
track another company. by virtue OF q contract,
brakeman, who, while In the due performance of
his duty on his employers train. receives a per-
sonal injury solely by reason OF the negligent
construction Of the formers station house.
When railroad corporation leases its road and
nen conaniSg w ~
It from liability, the lessor is liable to one law
fully there, for personal injury which resulted
its station house though the lessee had long been
in full possession and contro-under the lease and
had coYenanted therein to maintain preserve ans
keep the station houses in as good order and re-
pair as the same were in at the date of the lease.
In an action by brakeman for an injury re-
ceived while ascending the side ladder on a box
car and which resulted from the proximity of the
station awning to the car, testimony thai no other
awning ON the road was like this one is admissi-
BILE.
In such an action the admission Of testimony by
an experienced brakeman on the same train that
the undivided attention of person ascending
them was required, affords no ground of excep-
ton to the defendant
A careful examination OF the reported evidence
in this case has failed TO satisfy us that the jury
erred In their verdict.
Motion and exceptions overruled.
WALDO COUNTY.
F. Sup. Jud. Court, E. Dist, July T., 1887.
Andrew J. Stevens VS.. Benz. Kelley ct al.
Pescrigt bg Vlrgin, J.-NOthing herein is in
yolVed which is dependent upon or affected by the