The Republican journal., 1892-06-09


the rescrpts in three Waldo county cases.
The first is Christina R. Parker VS.. H. n.
Lancaster ct al This case tried at the
October term, 1882 resulting in a verdict for
the diff in the sum of $161.36. Exceptions
We're filed and motion made for a new trial.
. The plffs. husband was formerly partner in
the livery business with defts. and died in
1890 In settling. among other items claimed
to be due from the Parker estate, was bill
due Mr.. W. c. Marshall Mrs Parker says
she allowed the bill with the understanding
that defts. would pay the same to Mr.. Mar
shall The defts.. however. never paid Mr.,
Marshall The plff then sued to recover
back the 1855 and interest. amounting to
21OSO The defts denied the statement of
p1ff and said the amount due them was $40,
which was paid. The law court now sHS-
tains the motion of defts and grants new
trial. The rescript
eft is a settled rule of law that money Vol
UNFAIRLY maid cannot I've recovered back.
Money obtained by fraud or dureSS. OF under
such circumstances of oppression. actual or
threatened. as renders it unconScionahle for
! the one receiving it to retain IT. may he re-
covered back. BIT when one demands
other means to obtain it than importantly
and nersiStency. or threat expressed or IN
piled. of resort to litigation to obtain II II 1t
is not voluntarily paid. and the one OF whom
the mo lev is demanded has time for ronSld-
| CREATIONS and deliberations and to obtain the
advice of counsel or friends. and the money
ia then voluntarily paid to settle the de
man,ls it cannot be recovered back. though
the demand is illegal and unjust. The law
| favored the compromise of doubtful CLAIMS.
I all +1T,,, wants, NV ODD
mutual concessions to be lightly set aside.
A lawyer can render no more valuable ser
vice TO his client. and none for which he
should he better paid. than when. by his
efforts he succeeds in procuring the settle
ment of controversy without litigation. In
this case the money was paid voluntarily:
II was in fact a compromise settlement OF
all matters between the parties. Both par
ties employed counsel. The evidence fails
utterly to disclose any ground on which
either of the parties can rightfully diSahrm
or rescind the settlement in whole OF in part
and we are forced to the conclusion that the
verdict, which was for the plaintiff, must
he regarded as clearly and Enthusiastically
wrong.
State of Maine VS.. William Holt. of Bel
fast Some time ago the delft was indicted
for dissuading witness. 1t was lInor
case and it was alleged that the deft got
the principal witness drunk and took him
out of town where he was kept until the
court had ad iorrned. Subsequently a demnr-
Ter was filed to the Indictment and it Went
10 TIE law COURT Inc SPii Jung """S
WITNESSES HAS "eeh 9"'''''i''''F
| since. but the law court is very pronounced
| in tile matter, and We trust the practice will
now cease. The court oVerruleS the delnllr-
rar and the Indictment is al Judged sufficient
ne reSerllt'
Willui ana corrupt "l1elhI' =" Iit4'll'
fi 4;3,,ai .,,rra,f;.,.I ~, IN ,,i,ninistra-
tion of Justice. is an indietahle Offence. at
common law The essence OF the offence
consists in a wilful and corrupt attempt t.
Interfere with and ohstruct the adniniStra-
ton of Justice Intentionally and DIES gned
| " to get a witness drunk. for the eNpreSS
| purpose of preventing his attendance before
the grand Jury or in open court is such an
interference with the proceedings Ill the adj