The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-01-29
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.

The following decisions, with rescrps. in cases
pending before he Law Court, were received yes
TEL day by the Clerk OF Courts:
KENNEBEC COUNTY.
State of Maine vs. Charles l.. Beal
RescTipt by Haskell. 1.-THE court cor siders
after careful consideration of thsfwhole case,
that no sum ieLt cause has been shown to change
s decision Of the Justice Of & Superior Court
saw the witnesses and heard them testify. and re
fused new trial mine case His decision must
a mast be a snssred o rs Ss
Motion 9serrued; Judgment for the stats.
LINCOLN COUNTY.
Rof srt McClain VS.. Davis Tilsou
WI ypuse or drag seines In a bay on our coast,
noYhayng an entrance over three nautical miles
Z tween the main land and an island, or between
Islands, i prohibited BY chap. 261 OF the laws Of
nS b usnnpg tae %an 81 sach entrance any
from LAND TO land"
Defendant defaulted; penalty to be fixed at
Luc, A. Comery VS.. Albert E. Howard ct al.
Rescrtpt by Haskell 1.-THE plaintiff conveyed
'er pa e aud personal property to defendants in
and the net income during my natural life."
ltroyersy having arisen between the parties,
ssubmitted TO an arbitrat for d. elsion; and
Imtry VS.. Howard, 81, No. 42I, The court de-
es their rights, under the deed, submission
ID award. Itdeclares to be due from the plain
TIL to defendants the sum of S486. 30, and says:
ITO entitle the plaintiff to reconveyance or up-
on refusal and neglect to reconvey to recover
the value Of the property, It is incumbent on her
awarded. Her remedy after the award was MADE
was under the award" The court held that the
rights of the parties arising from the contract
contained In the deed OF Nav. 1892 was rescind-
I'D by the submission, and that the award follow
ing II must be conclusive between them By This
award the defendants are entitled to the sum fixed
tiff is entitled to deed If fer property
The amount du- from the plaintiff has neither
been paid or rendered, and, meantime, the income
Of the property or crops taken and harvested by
the defendants cannot be replevied by pIaintif
The defendants rights are as mortgagees Excep-
tons overruled.
ANDRosCoGGIN COUNTY,
Simuel X. Littehale VS.. Stephen p Littlefeld
Rescript by Peters, G. I'VE have examined
constrained to decide that the relief petitioned
for cannot be granted. 1t Is a close case on che
orig nal facts but we do not feel at liberty to 90
against previous decisions OF the same case. !
First, verdict was rendered by a jury against
the plaintiff and the law court declined 10 set the
verdict aside Then a petition for review
Libbey, and decided against the plai tiff Now,
still another petition Is brought before u.s. We
cannot perceive why substantially the -sssfae
Is moi before US -@h'cn vas decided by Justice
10y. Of course there are some differences
but they do not appear to us TO be material To
allow review, when petition for the same pur-
pose has previously been heard, and decided
against the petitioner the new evidence that has
never before been considered, must be substantial
aud effective. We are not impressed with the
belief that the case now submitted u.s. I'm material
respects different from the case as considered
and decided before.
The iitioner has had all reasonable opportu-
mites 10 yndcats his claim, and now that he fails
to convince the court Of the alleged error he re-
lies on, he should willingly submit to the result
which attends the long and arduous litigation.
Petition denied.