The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-12-27
LAW DECISIONS.
Opinions Given in Several Cases of Interest
to Portland People.

| The following Cumberland county de-
cisions have been received from the Law
| court The opinions are all drawn by
Judge Haskell.
| State VS.. Frederick A. CLARK.
The statutes provides penalty for cruel
| treatment of a horse by amy person
having the charge or custody thereof,
| as owner or otherwise" Arrest OF judg-
| ment is asked because the complaint
| charges the defendant with having the
| custody and control of horse, without
| further particulars. The allegation is
sufficient The statute says either
says custody and control" Custody
| need only be alleged or proved. The
| statute excuses averments as to the
particulars of custody. Exceptions
| overruled.
B.C.Gay VS.. Henry G. Doughty. The
defendant, a deputy OF the sheriff, is
sued for the value OF eight tons of hay
attached by him on a writ against one
Harrison Dill and sold by him on exc
cution. The attachment was in Septem-
Der. Both the plaintiff and Dill testify
to a sale and delivery of the hay to Gay
by Dill during the August previous. The
sale was. made in the barn where the hay
was. Forty dollars was there paid and
a receipt given for it. Both say the
balance was paid few days afterward.
Ii their testimony be true the defendant
has no case, for he could not take the
property of Gay for. DilPs debts. Three
witnesses are called to 1mpeach Dill's
reputation for truth. Their testimony
shows some bias. Two witnesses are
called for the same purpose by Gay. On
the oJher hand, two witnesses are called
who say Dill's reputation for truth is
good, and eight we'll known men in Port
land say Gays reputation for truth is
good. From a consideration of the
testimony, as it appears to us in print,
the weight of it heavily preponderates
against the verdict We fear the jury
must have been acuated by some preil,.
dice and think justice will be best sus-
tanned by a new trial. Motion sustained.
Inhabitants of Deering VS.. Edward
Moore The failure of collector of
taxes to sign his bond delivered to the
town with sureties will not invalidate
the same, because the liability imposed
by law is precisely the same as if the
bond had been signed by the principal.
The covenants in the bond would not
have changed the legal station of the
parties. When sureties bind themselves
severally for the payment of the same
debt they are liable to contribution SO
that all shall fare alike. The release of
discharge of one, on part payment of
liability would not, although the DIS
charge of the debt might do SO, under
the provisions of Rs, Oh. 50, sec. As.
Defendant defaulted. Damages to be
assessed below.
= OXFORD COUNTY,.
Seleotmen of Andover, applts. VS..
County Commissioners.
Rescript-The ownership of land liable
to taxation in a town through which
highway has. been laid by the committee
ar fad nm Iaf +x-
commissioners will not disqualify
member of such committee from acting,
no part ofsuch land having been taken
for the way.
Impartial action from some non APP
parent interest when shown, may destroy
the report OF a committee. 1t may de-
strOy action, but not authority to act
No such facts appear in this case. The
fairness or integrity of the report is not
questioned.
The description of the way in the
original petition is as particular as usual
in such cases and is sufficient. Excep-
lions sustained. Report accepted.
KENNEBEC COUNTY. 80.
y VIM. B. Neal VS.. W. b. Berry.
Rescript-H the note in suit be firm
liability. it became the plaintiffs duty
to pay it by the terms of the award be-
tween the parties. II not, then it is a
joint promise of the parties, made when
the defendant was a minor. He has
never ratified his promise in any writing,
and therefore, under our statute cannot
be held upon it. Judgment for defend
ant.
WALDO COUNTY.
Christian r. Parker.vs Humphrey w.
Lancaster ct al.
Rescript-This case has before been
considered by the Law court. 81 Me.
ha oil hn1
and the court, after an elaborate consid-
GRAFTON of the law of the case, decided
that the verdict was SO clearly wrong
that it must be set aside. Here the
plaintiff complains Of nonsuit .below.
The case is substantially the same as
when here before, and we are of the
opinion that the nonsuit was rightly or
dered. Exceptions overruled.
Horace C.Webber. in equity VS.. George
E. Wallace, administrator.
Rescript-The case shows that the
plaintiff is entitled to redeem farm from
mortgage given to secure the support
of the mortgage. The conditions of sup
port are named in the mortgage, and
have not been performed by the mort
gagors.
The cause must go to a master to find
the amount due on the mortgage.
Bill sustained. Cause referred to a
master to report the amount furnished
On tne mortgage. CoStS TO await hnal
result
PENOBsCOT COUNTY.
Elliot Walker VS.. Albert W. Paine, adj
ministhrator ct ais
Rescript-C Calvin. B. Ladd, the testator,
devised all his estate to his widow in
trust for the support of herself and of
his granddaughter Edith, during their
natural lives, and at their decease de-
vised the residue thereof to such issue of
Edith as might be living at her death.
but if no such issue, he then devised the
same to his legal heirs" not to hers.
The widow died and the plaintiff be-
came trustee in hcr place. The trust has
been executed in Edith's favor until her
death and now the trust property should
be distrib uted as provided in the will,
viz: among the legal heirs of the tesla
tor. There appear to be five sisters, and
two children OF deceased brother. The
sisters are entitled to one-sixth each, and
the nephews to one-tWelsth each. And