The Portland daily press., 1893-12-25
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT


The following decisions with rescripts
have been handed down. The most in
teresting in this portion of the state is
that denying a new trial of the Pease-
| Burrowes case:
John ". Pease VS.. Edward 7. Burrowes.
| Rescript by Judge Haskell-The cross
! examination of q witness GnaJ shows
mental illusion or unbalance concerning
| the subject matter of examination in
| chief is competent for the consideration
| of the Jury in weighing the testimony in
| chief. The correct account by a witness
| of knowledge previously Obtained de-
ponds upon the capacity of the. witness
! to correctly retain and communicate IL.
| If, at the time of testifying the witnesses
! mind is normal, the testimony must have
| greater weight than if it appears alb
! normal: for, in one case, the N edium of
| comm unication is trustworthy, while in
| the other, it is to be d1struSted according
to the degree OF unbalance that is made
apparent. Such cross-examination must
necessarily be admitted in the discre-
tion of the court. de bene If, when
heard, it appears competent for consid-
GRAFTON by the jury as bearing upon the
credit OF the witness it becomes part
| of the testimony in the case to be
weighed and considered. If it appears to
harmless, its admission will not be con-
| sidered error, but, if mischievous, will
| be cause for new trial
| In this case, the cross-eXamination of
the witness shows such mental illusion
and ambulance, concerning the subject
matter of her testimony in chief, that it
| was competent for consideration by the
! jury insweighing her testimony. Itwas
as no evidence of the facts SO stated, and
the court must have so instructed the
| jury, as nothing to the contrary appears
/ in the record,
has no concern, as the plaintiff does not
ask a revision of 1T upon that ground.
! Exceptions overruled.
OXFORD COUNTY.
Clement E. Ward VS.. James III. Barrows.
Rescript by Chief Justice Peters-The
defendant gave. the plaintiff the follow
| ing writing, as minute of the amount
/ of wages due the plaintiff from a COM
pany of which the defendant was presi-
dent: "June "a, 1892. amount due c. E.
| Ward to date S28. 20. j. H. Barrows. Held
that the writing is not valid due bill
of the defendant, inasmuch as there was
no legal consideration for such a promise
by the defendant, the plaintiff neither
assigning or acquitting his claim for
wages nor taking the paper as payment
| thereof.
Exceptions overruled.
ANDRosCoGGIN COUNTY.
State of Maine VS.. John Riley.
Rescript by Chief Justice Peters-An
| owner of liquors which were seized from
him by an officer without a warrant and
kept eight days before a. warrants was
obtained, without any justification for
the delay, cannot be held in criminal
proceedings instituted against him per-
sonally. for having such liquors in his
cirr,f n, In. he ,ff1 1,o-
came tresspasser by the delay and the
seizure void.
Exceptions sustained; Indictment
quashed
FRANKLIN COUNTY.
State of Maine VS.. J. O.S. Sko field.
Rescript by Chief Justice Peters-The
statute (R.S., oh. 40. sec. Az declares it
illegal to sell trout" during close time
The complaint alleges that the respond
emit on a certain day named "did sell
trout" to a certain person named, the
day of the sale being within close time.
Both the statute and the complaint
described the offense in general terms
The complaint is good.
The complaint is not defective because
itsomits to aver that the act complained
| of does not fall under certain other
statutes which make the taking and
selling of trout permissible under certain
conditions. There is no provision or ex-
ception in the section on which the COM
| plant is founded.
1t is not defect that the complaint
| does not allege that the act complained of
! was done unlawfully." The insertion of
the word unlawffully in an Indictment
or complaint is necessary when the
statute uses it in describing the offense
But not necessary when, as here, the
statute omits the word, but in it's gem
eral terms declaring the offense. Still,
it is wise always to employ the word in
charging the elements of an offense, be-
cause it negatives all legal cause of ex-
cuse for the act committed.
Exceptions overruled; Judgment for
state.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
Charles P. Mustard, admr. VS.. Union
National Bank.
Rescript by Chief Justice Peters-A
stock holder in a bank is not entitled to
| interest from the bank either on ordi-
nary dividends declared on his shares, or
on money due him from reduction by
the bank of it's capital stock, for period
during which the bank was prevented
from paying him the same by attach
ment of his stock in suits pending i'll
court between him and other parties;
although the money thus belonging to
i him was during such time mingled by
the bank with it's general assets, the
bank being ready and willing to pay
over the same but for the attachments
and having on hand all the time a bal
ance of money su fficient for the purpose.
Exceptions overruled.