The Portland daily press., 1889-01-19
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
BEFORE JUDGE HASKELL.

FRIDAY.-Dennis A. Meaher VS.. Eliza DeWolfe.
An action OF trespass quare clunsum. The plain
TN anu anu the defendant are the owners Of adjoin-
fendant erected within about one foot of the
plaintiffs house board fence ten or twelve feet
In height, thus shutting out In large measure
the light from that portion of the house. Plain
tiff claimed that the fence built partially up
on his own land and that it caused dampness and
otherwise injured the house. and introduced teso
timOny to show that it was built out of Spite and
that the defendant interferred with the tenants
and with the carpenters and painters who were
The defendant claimed that the fence was
wholly upon her own land, denied that it was
erected out OF spite, and claimed that il was
built solely in the interest of peace and quiet
ness and in consequence of complaints from
eadan dened az ~ d
repairs.
parties as claimed by plaintiff, and awarded dam
ages TO the plaintiff in the sum of 500.
j. j. Perry and ID. A. Meaher.
This being the last case for trial before a iury
the jurorslwere excused finally. Divorce matters
will be in order Saturday morning and each day
thereafter until final adjournment.
The following decisions with rescripts by Judge
Walton, were announced yesterday, in cases
pending before the law court for the Western
District:
FRANKLIN COUNTY.
State VS.. Elijah w. Locklin, ct. al.
Rescrtpt-Itis is the opinion Of the court that the
indictment is SUFFICIENT In form, and that no cause
is shown for arresting judgment on the verdict;
and whether the verdict is so clearly unsupported
by the evidence as TO make 1t the duty Of the court
that cannot be determined by the law court; such
question, in criminal cause, must be deter
the entry must be that the exceptions are over
ruled and the motion dismissed.
+. E. Timberlake vs. Eli Crosby.
Rescript-It is the opinion of the court that the
verdict Is clearly wrong and that the motion must
be sustained and new trial granted.
ANDRosCoGGN COUNTY.
+. M Drew, admir-, vs.. Mary Hagerty, ct TT.
Rescript-It is the opinion Of the court that the
gift of a savings bank book, cdasa naortis to be
valid, must be accompanied by an actual delivery
some one for the donee; and that the delivery
must be made for the express purpose of consum-
mating the gift; that previous and continuing
possession by the donee is not sufficient; and
that in this and in all other particulars, the rul-
ings in the court below were correct;
and that the motion and exceptions must be over
ruled and judgment entered on the verdict.
YORK COUNTY,
Ruth J. Hooper, adm'x, vs. Boston & Maine
railroad
Rescrtpt-It is the opinion of the court that the
evidence such as to Justify the jury in return
ing averdlct for the plaintiff and that no cause is
shown for granting new trial, and that the mo-
tion must be oyerruled and judgment entered on
the verdict.
FRANKLIN COUNTY.
A. r. Millett ct ais, applts. from decision of
County Commissioners.
Rescript- is the opinion Of the court that, in
asmuch as the law requires the report of the COM
mttee appointed to revise the doings OF county
commissioners in locating highway to be made
at the next second term OF the court after their
appointment, the committee may proceed to view
the route and give the parties hearing, notwith-
standing exceptions touching questions Of law
raised in the case are pending In the law court,
otherwise a seasonable report cannot be made;
and it is also the opinion of the court that it is not
a valid objection to the location OF highway by
the county commissioners that the way begins in
field at the end of town way
Exceptions overrlued.
LINCOLN COUNTY.
Rescript--It is the opinion Of the court that the
Insurance. laws OF this State render null and void
cohdltlon In fire insurance policy that no act
OF any agent of the company, other than Its Sec
retary or president shall be construed or held to
pc pc waiver OF full and strict compliance with
,1r,tp all te PROVISIONS Oh the pocy and that letter
slole IN evidence TO- explain or excuse delay In
furnishing proofs OF less; and that the insfruc.
tioas to the Jury in the trial of this case were cor
verdict for the plaintiff; and that no valid cause
is shown for granting new trial. and thar tbe
m NET lao