The Portland daily press., 1888-06-21
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT,

WEDNEsDAY.-The following rescripts and de-
cisions in law cases In the western district were
sent down yesterday by Chief Justice Peters, by
whom the opinions and rescripts were drawn.
The one In reference to the railroad crossing is
particularly Important In view of the numerous
crossings az grade around the city in close prox-
unity to other railroads where it Is difficult to de-
termine by the bell or whistle of the locomotive
upon which road the train is approaching. The
facts OF the case sufficiently appear in the re-
script
YORK COUNTY.
State of Maine VS.. Boston g. Maine Railroad
Company.
Rescrtpt on Peters, C.J-The rule which re-
quires that traveller on the highway shall look
and listen before he attempts to drive across a
railroad track also as imperatively requires that,
II coming train is heard by him, and there be
doubt whether the train is upon such track or
some other. he shall stop at a safe distance from
the crossing until all doubt is sove as to its To-
cation.
The deceased in this case, with two associates
was riding in wagon towards railroad cross
ing, at about 10 O'Clock in the evening Of star
light night one of the associates owning and driv-
ing the team, and carrying the other two gratui-
lously as a nelgnDorly Kindness, when locOmO-
tive whistle was heard by them. They expressed
doubt among themselves whether the train was
farther away running in the same direction. and
continued driving on slowly intent upon the
noise Of the train They could not see the train
on account OF buildings and bushes between them
and II. The bell was not heard by them. AS they
approached nearer they saw the gates at the
crossing VIDE open and no person in attendance
upon them, although they had been accustomed
70 seeing the gates in operation and a fagman
there For several years the practice of the road
had been TO keep fagman In attendance at the
crossing, but, unknown 10 these persons he usual
~ left the place at about o'clock Ia the evening
10r the night. The train was the Light Pullman
from Boston going east, whichfor most the time
Tor many years bad not run upon this road, but
had run upon the other road Of the same company
before spoken Of The train was running through
compact portion OF the city of BiddefOrd at un-
Jaw. lawful rate OF speed for such place, and at the
t fSte oi ,tiwenty.flye miles an hour or more when
the collision occurred and the person for whose
death this suit Is brought was Instantly killed. 1t
Is stipulated by the parties that the plaintiff shall
recover II these facts would In any event anthOr-
ze jury TO find verdict in favor of the plaintiff
upheld.
the ground that no statute required them TO main
tain gates at the crossing. The voluntary estab-
llshment OF gates is evidence of their necessity
aud be advertised to travellers, it is evidence Of
negngehee II they are not properly attended an d
Less responsibility may have rested on the two
persons VINO were passengers than ON the driver
who owned and drove the team. The doctrine of
the English case of Thorogood VS.. Bryan, which
lmputes 70 passenger the negligence of a driver
over whom the passenger exercises no influence
Or control, as far as It has obtained footing In
this State is oyerruled.
Indictment sustained Judgment for the State
Damages assessed at $4,000.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
State VS.. James Z. Cady ct ais
ReScript-In the trial OF criminal causes other
tnan those that were lately capital, where there
are several defendants, they are jointly, and not
seyerally entitled to the perempiOry challenge al
lowed by statute. The challenges are allowed to
them as party and not as persons
Exceptions do not lie to the exclusion from the
panel OF a juror whom one defendant objects to
8 ana another defendant desires to retain. Judge
may.to hisldiscreton put legal Juror off the panel
pus CANNOT put put an Illegal juror on Except