The Portland daily press., 1893-06-03
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
The following rescripts have been received
from the law court.
KENNEBEo COUNTY.
Louis A. Coquard VS.. Barrett S. Potter, ct al
Rescrtpt-The facts which are material in this
case are not in dispute.
former residing in st. Louis, and the latter in
Augusts. The claim OF the plaintiff, in SUBJ
stance Is, that by letter Of October 8, 1885, he
offered the defendants "a cents fat for certain
Beardstown bonds delivered in St. Louis with
overdue coupons and that the defendants &C
cepted his offer by letter Of Nov. II, 1885, and
that they failed to deliver the bonds.
There is a second count In the writ alleging
an offer by the defendants by their letter Of
Nov. 18th and an aceeptance by the plaintiff by
The presiding Judge directed a verdict for the
defendants, to which the plaintiff excepted
We see no reason for disturbing the verdict.
The material facts are found in the admitted
correspondence between the parties. The only
question Is whether there was completed con
tract between the p3rties-a proposition dis
tlnst BY one sI party and accepted without modif-
pondence between the parties fall to establish
q case for the plaintiff, Jenness VS.. Mt Hope
Iron Co., So Maine, 2o; Cumberland Bone Co.
VS.. ATWOOD Lead CO., So Maine, 1877.
The correspondence consists not only of the
,Nstlers ABOVE mentioned, viz; Oct 9TH and
nov: i daaa lsSs bEt Of several preceding
sidering whether there was any contract be-
tween the parties.
September 1o, 1885. the defendants wrote
o oaenn plaintiff $4,000 Beardstown ss and
:, September 14th, plaintiff replied inquiring if
the interest had always been paid.
september ~, defendants, wrote that they
posed to issue per cent funding bond to
take up the old ones.
September Fl, plaintiff replied and spoke of
me iavaiidity OF the bonds and deprecated the
new funding bonds.
September 2sth, defendants informed plain
tin that they had failed to obtain the full $4,000
ofiered in their first letter. and had collected in
On the same day the plaintiff again wrote and
spoke Of the Illegally Of the old bonds and the
difficulty of refunding them.
October 9th, the plaintiff wrote and made
what be relies upon as his offer, and which he
claims was accepted BY the defendants by their
But the offer as well as the alleged accent
ance should be read and construed In the light
including the DEFENDANTS letter of October 18th
ana the plaintiffs letter of October 10th, both
OF which We're written and received before the
alleged acceptance of November 18th. From
the defendants letter of October 18th we think
It clear that the plaintiffs offer, as understood
by both parties, was for the entire $4,000. The
PLAINTIFF letter OF October 10Th seems CON
ciusiye upon this view,----for he says: IF you
them.u
The acceptance fails to meet the offer in one
OF more elements, The offer was for $4,000,
was for ali unpaid pastdie COUPONS to Be o1 at
tached to bonds" The alleged acceptance was
for bonds with coupons detached.
Ihe acceptance was not the equivalent of the
ofteri there was not assent or meeting of the
MINDS upon the same proposition.
Moreover, the plaintiff's letter of October
lbth, received long prior to what is relied upon
0aUn nfaf, on-xv 1t,II
be withdrawal of the offer of October 18th.
L was reply to the letter of the defendants
q October 18th, in which the $1,000 Boards
says II doubt my being able to get "a per
per cent for your Beardstown bonds now. bit
5ss y9 3Ssg, st them IN shape TO Offer, will try to
Exceptions oyeruled.
KNOX COUNTY.
State VS.. William Whalen ct. al, Aplts.
state VS.. Edward LothrOp, Aplt. III
siaescfapt, ltiS only by the express provisions
o. me statute H. s. C. -, sec. 49, that mags
q dwelling house occupied as such, and in two
1. That some part of it is used as an inn or
Sn0p, or Tor purposes OF traffic; or
z. Unless he is satisfied by evidence pre-
scented to him and so alleged in the warrant that
Intoxicating liquor is kept in such house or its
appurtenances intended for sale in this state in
1t Is not sufficient compliance with the
STATUTE where the Warrant;e0ntains the follow.
presented that intoxicating LIQUORS are kent IN II
said house and its appurtenances, and that said
hauors are intended TO sale in this state in
In criminal proceedings there should. be a
direct and positive allegation OF jurisdictionaI
iacts required by the statute, without resort to
intendment or inference.
A general appearance, and pleading to the
complaint, may be a waiver as to matters Of
form, but not TO jurisdictional defects.
Jgrisdictional defects apparent upon the face
81 E ae Tenaer
calf ct al. =
OF jury upon an issue of fact submitted to them
WILDE sustained unless there is some weighty
or material reason why the verdict does not
satisfy the court.
But the findings of a iury in sueb case roust
pc such as, upon all the evidence, shall satisfy
Inc conscience OF the court to found decree
upon or they will be set aside.
will disregard it whenever in the Judgment of
the COURT 1t is unsatisfactory.
where fraud and deceit are alleged as the
parties, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to
establish the charge by legitimate evidence.
This ais, rule prevails IN equity as well as at law.
u 70 b waS % an BY fraud Or
prior to and at the time when the deed was ey.
ecuted and delivered.
oupso4uont ldctS, Wnlle admissible in evil
dence, are alone insufficient to establish a prior
fraud. 800 - r fH ~
II aparty can read, it is not open to him.
aILer executing the deed to insist. that the
terms OF 1t were different from what he SUP
posed them to be when he signed it,
verdict set aside. Decree reversed. ELL
with costs.
YORK COUNTY.
Boston y Maine Railroad vs. James w. Small.
Rescript by Emery jill an officer serving a
search oh
monty called the search and SEIZURE statute)
omts TO seize the intoxicating liquors he finds
upon the premises described In his warrant. he
forfelts the protection of his warrant. and is
liable Ior any injury done by him to person OF
warrant
Defendants defauited. Damages assessed at
U. S. COMMISSIONERS COURT.
BEFORE COMMISSIONER BRADLEY.
FRIDAY-Michael Carey, non payment of a
government tax for the sale OF Intoxicating