The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-04-12
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.

BEFORE JUDGE WALTON.
The April term was opened yesterday morn
ing and a traverse jury was made up as follows:
BENJAMIN F. Carter; foreman, scarporo.
William HI. Allen, Windham.
William Atkinson, Brunswick.
Atwood A. Bracket, Cape Elizabeth
John NJ Flint. Baldwin.
Charles A. Lang. Harrison.
Louis Larochelle, Portland
Levi W. Libby, Standish.
Charles r. Loring, North Yarmouth.
Clinton Mosher, Deering.
John J. Skillings. Westbrook.
Freeland NJ. Small, Gray.
SuperaaaaerGries.
Harlan B. True, Pownal.
Howard A. Waite, Freeport.
Lorenzo d. Wells, Falmouth.
Excused.
Frederick II. Beals, Portland.
Samuel B. Knight. Gorham.
Peter O'Connor, Portland.
The first case opened to the jury was the
Mississippi s. Dominion Steamship Company
(Limited) VS.. Gustavus F. Swift to recover
damages laid at $24, 690.08 for breach OF con-
tract.
The plaintiff company allege that Swift
Bro hers of Boston and Chicago made a con-
tract with the steamship company to carry their
beef and for that purpose leased the steerage IL
the vessels Vancouver, Sarnia and oregon; ana
then refused subsequently to ship the Deel.
This suit is brought to recover the dlfference
between the CONTRACT price OF the space leaseo
and what they actually received for the space
after thew knew OF the breach by the defend
ants 5,b
The case is Withdrawn from the jury ndsuDr
mitted to the court. AS important questlons OF
law are involved the case will probably 20 70
the Law court in some form. ,.:.;e
SymondS, Snow and Cook Tor plalItin.
A. r. Savage and Clarence Hale Tor delehu-
ants. 49,, A,brrp
In the afternoon the counsel for me An a 1at1
Aqueduct Company and the counsel tpr 'ilo Sioy
OF Auburn, presented the matter OF Ine sul.lU
iency of the deed of the franchise OF tne AUBURN
Water Company to trustees for the City OF Au-
burn. .,,o.;ro,, +ba +rons-
fer of the property franchises, rights ana PRIV
ileges of the Water Company to the CITY pro-
yides that In case the deed is unsatlsfactory.
either party may apply to some Jusuce OF tne
Supreme Court who, after the hearing OF the
parties. shall approve or disapproye OF 1t, ana
Ii he disapproveS of it shall order such deed re,
formed and upon the reIorHldbion Vi tne ueeu
The deed as drawn and rendered by the
Aqueduct Company, was not satisfactory 10 tne
city and thereupon the city apphed TO Judge
Walton to disapproye OF the deed as provided
in the act.
Ex-Attorney General Baker Of counsel for the
City OF Auburn, in opening, said that the city
objected to the deed as prepared by the Aque-
duct Company, because it ran to the Auburn
Trust Company and followed The old offer by
the city OF December 10, 1892. Since then that
expired. The city now wished a deed running
directly to the city in It's corporate capacity
without the intervention OF any trust.
Judge SymOnds. for the water company, SAID
he had prepared the deed strictly in accordance
with the course of legislation, and particularly
the act of 1898, which provides that the Aque-
duct Company Is authorzepd to accept sae oe d
upon the same terms, conditions and trusts as
it might have accepted the same on OF before
February 9Th. It was made IN accorda a.;s
with the offer of the city Of December 10Th,
which was very full and formal, providing for
the trust. and specifying how it should be car
ried out. Judge Symonds said he had no
knowledge of any action OF the city revoklng or
resembling that offer, and no notice that deed
in accordance with that offer would not he sat
isfactory until after this deed was made and
filed with the clerk OF courts as provided by
the act.
Mr.. Baker did not quite understand the re-
quirements of the act OF 1893 as dld Judge Sy-
monds. The act contemplates giving the city
the choice of naming the grantee. 1t says
expressly in paragraph subsequent to the one
referred to by Judge Symonds that II said
company shall accept said offer it shall forth
with cause deeds OF transfer and conveyance TO
be made to the city or to the trustee designated
under said act" etc.
Judge Walton said he had but little doubt
give the city the choice of having the deed run
to trustee or directly to them as they had the
election under the original act OF 1891. The
offer of December. i 8 not having. been accepted
by the Aqueduct Company became dead, and
the City of Auburn thereby came into possess
sion of charter whereby it was empowered
to go on and construct WORKS or ltS own. InSJ
charter it owned and held until March "a, 1898,
when by act of the legislature it was taken
away from it or suspended to await further
action on the part Of the Water Company.
Judge Walton said he thought the city was en-
titled to deed running directly to the City OF
Auburn and he thought it would be tor the in
terest of both parties to give and accept such
deed ;,of course with the rights of the Aqueduct
Company properly guarded as to the city as
sumfng the bonded debt of the company. etc.
Judge Symonds and Mayor Bolster said they
had no doubt both parties would consent to
give and accept such deed as the court might
order; that neither party desired any further
litigation of the matter Thereupon Judge
Walton said he would dsapprove of the deed
offered by the Water Company and would pre-
con emplated, running directly to the city with
out the Intervention of the Trust Company.