The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-03-04


The following decisions with rescripts have
been received in cases pending before the law
court for the Western district:
ANDRoscoGGIN COUNTY.
Henry ?. Dorman ct. al. vs. the Maine Central
Railroad Company
Henry p. Dorman ct. al. vs.. the Bates Manufac-
The actions are before the court involving sub
stantlaiy the same state OF facts. Que is against
the Maine Central Railroad Company and the 9th.
er is against the Bates Manufacturing COMPANY.
Inc question is In relation tO right Of way.
The plaintiffs own land bounded on and extend
as 1t now exists, extends from Cedar street north
erly 10 Chestnut street. a distance OF about 600
leet. AS marked on plan OF the Lewiston Water
northerly to Main street, a distance of over 2O0C
ieet The contentin is In relation to that portion
Of the street which lies between Chestnut anc
MAIN streeis The plaintiffs obtained a tile tC
their land by deed from the Franklin Company
dated March "a, 1880; and they claim that being
On w avn they are entitled % an
the street as II was laid down on the plan OF the
lewiston water Power Company in 1866.
lne defendants contend that the plaintiffs OBJ
talned at most only right OF way as far north a
chestnut street, that being the recognized and de-
neo lsngth Oh Mil street II that direction at the
tend further that at he time of the convey ance to
the plaintiffs their grantor did not own the land
and therefore could not convey right OF way
over L to anyone. The rescr pts by Judge Wal
RescrGpt--ss Is the opinion OF the court that the
palntlns have failed to establish their title 10 the
Way claimed IN their writ; and upon this prounc
Judgment for defendant
Milton A. Jewelt ct al. VS.. Nelson Gagne.
TINS Is an action of debt on a bond given by one
the suretles. The defendant pleaded the genera
issue, and by way of brief statement alleged tina
ne was ndnced to sign the bond by the fraud O
the plalntin: During the trial the defendant ad
miIted that he signed the bond, and at the clos,
=, .ne evidence tne presiding Judge instructed tn,
jury 10 return veraict for the plaintiff.
Rescript by Walton J.-It is the opinion of the
court that the evidence of fraud was clearly in
sunclent 70 justify verdict for the defendant OF
tnat ground and the defendant having admitted
nat ne signed the bond declared on, It is the opin
ION OF Inc Court that as matter of law the plaintiff
was entitled TO verdict, and that the jury wert
properly instructed 70 return sucs "a verdict al,
LOT lnese reasons the p0ti0n and exception
dict. S-e''s" on INC 'er
Motion and exceptions overruled.
judgment on the verdict.
YORK COUNTY.
Loyey A. Pilisbury VS.. Irving j. Brown ct as
The defendants, two of them SELF ctmen and lii,
in behalf of their town widened The street In from
Of the PLAINTIFFS hotel at Old Orchard and built
sidewalk. She claims that in so doing they did
tended lit on to her land, and sues them In an ac
close. -
<teocItpC ny WdltOn J.-lt is the opinion of the
court that the defendants in widening the trayeiI
ed part OF the street in front of the paDtis hote
az Old Orchard and In building sidewalk kept
within the limits of the way as originally laid ouf
and that by lapse of time the original location
though In some particulars defective, has ripened
into legal location, aud that the public is now en-
itled 70 and ow way three rods wide that be-
the selectmen of the town; and that the defend
ANS were not guilty OF trespass upon the plain
TN 8 land and upon these grounds Judgment Il
ordered for the defendants.
Judgment for defendants.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
State VS.. James <. Cady.
hescrtpt by Walton, J.-It is the opinion of the
That the refusal to instruct the Jury to re-
turn verdict Of not guilty was correct, the eyi
eence being sufcie2t 70 justify verdict of guilty
&he the exception to the overruling Of the motioI
In arrest Of Judgment is overruIed for want Of
prosecution, no copy Of the Indictment having
been furnished to the law court and the excep
lions not having been inssied on, or even alluded
10, Id the argument Of the defendants counsel
All the exceptions are therefore overruled and
Judgement ordered for the State.
Exceptions overruled. Judgment for the State
KNOX COUNTY.
Thomas E. Brastow ct ais. VS.. George II. II
Barrett.
Reseript by Walton, J.-ht the time of the
commencement of this action, the plaintiffs hello
three mortgages and a written lease of the de-
manded premises, all then In force; and the de-
PENDANT admits by his plea (ntA disseisi1) that he
was then In possession holding the pla ntiffs out
such being the facts 1t Is the opinion of the court
that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgmeni for
possession OF the demanded premises; that the
lease is no bar to such a jud gment; and such a
judgment Is therefore ordered
judgment for plaintiffs.