Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1892-11-17
DECISIONS
By The Law Court Bescripts Received

The following law court decisions have
been received by Clerk of Courts Choate of
kcnnebec cases
Howard W. Dodge ct al vs. Alpheus
Hunter. Rescript.
Where a writ was dated Dec. 10. 1890,
made returnable at the June term of the
superior rourt instead of lone of the next
two terms after date, p" and real estate was
attached thereon; and in February follow
ing, before personal service upon the de
PENDANT, the erroneous return day was
changed TO the April term, u new attach
ment made and final scryicc completed ;
and it was entered at the April term, when
the defendant appeared generally, and at
the June term pleaded the general issue.
filed an offer to be defaalted on the count
on the account annexed aud a brief state
n,cut of statute of limitation on the count
on the promissory note. Held that the
commission to seasonably raise the technical
objection was waiver of il. Exceptions
overruiet
Received and filed Nov. Il, \. H., lsa3.
John f. Martin vs.. Chas. 4. Pike.
applnt. Rescript.
Troeer for the value of clock which
the plaintiff claims he purchased from Lu-
,inda Fairbanks in lsGs and which the de-
PENDANT claims he bought of her daughter,
Harriet Fairbanks. in 1890.
The plaintiff recovered a judgment be-
fore the trial justice. from which the de-
PENDANT appealed, and subsequently oh
tanned a verdict of a jury in the appellate
court; and the case Is now before this court
or the defendants bill of exceptions.
The first, fifth and ninth exceptions are
to certain pieces of evidence which was
nominally objected to and admitted, with
out any specific objections stated. at the
time. to its almissibility and hence must
he ovcrruled. Randall vs.. Hunter. 60 Ne.
1888. Ruggles vs.. Coffin, 20 Me. 4,;s
Hartweil vs.. Cad. lns. Co, 81 Me. j24.
Second and third The dcfendan, con
tends that the phrase ''has shown con-
tract" was too broad a statement. But the
remaining portion of the sentence shows
that he mean, that the plaintiff has testified
TO what took place between his alleged ven
dor and himself and then submitted the
matter to the jury.
We do not perceive how the defendant
could be thereby sggrieved.
I. The facts concerning the prima facia
presumption of ow nership arising from pos
session was not erroneous,
g. The instruction calling The defend
ants claim Of Joint ownership with Harriet.
his widow. "a suggestion could not have
injured the defendant for the Judge subse-
quently In his charge discussed that claim
more fully and makes the defendants eth
exception.
6. The inventory Of the household fur
niture of the husband of Lucinda. plaintiffs
vendor. was allowed to go in. showing
clock together with a decree of allowance
by the Judge of probate, of 5000 from the
personal property. and that the clock re-
manned in lucinda's possession for years
thereafter. In his charge. the judge called
the attention of the jury to these facts, ea'i-
tioning them and left them 10 say whether
it was the same clock and came to her by
wav Of the allowance, and what weight they
would give to the evidence. Though II was
somewhat remote we do not think it at
foried the defendant any good canse for
exceptions.
4. The instruction in relation to JOINT
ownership claimed when taken all together
could not iujnre the defendant.
S. Was also harmless: and we think the
old clock should have its time. No fault is
found with the finding of the facts by the
jury.
Exceptions overruled.
Received and filed Nov. Is. ls92.