The Portland daily press., 1894-08-01
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
LdW Term.

The case of Hiram Hubbard and others OF
Paris, against William Woodman and others,
county commissioners of Oxford county and
George NJ. Atwood, county treasurer, was
argued before the Law court yesterday.
This is the controversy in regard to the re-
moval of the county buildings from Paris
Hill to South Paris. In 1892, under the
provisions of the Revised Statutes at large
number of citizens of o xford county petit
toned the county commissioners to lay the
matter of removal in reality to build new
county buildings at South Paris, before the
people. The county commissioners under
that petition did submit the question to the
people, and it was voted upon at the
municipal elections in March, 1888. An I'M
usually large vote, nearly as large as at the
ureyious September election, resulted in a
vote of 299 yes, and 149 noes, a majority of
$50 for removal.
Sometime after the completion of the
record in the county commissioners court,
a petition by Hiram Hubbard and others,
residents of Paris Hill was filed asking that
the county commissioners be enjoined and
prohibited from building new county build
ings. and that the county treasurer be en-
Joined from expanding money for any such
purpose. The Injunction was asked for up
on two grounds. First, because the question
was not property submitted to the people
in that the question which the county COM
missioners directed the municipal officers to
answer in their warrant was duplex, con-
tanning two propositions-one for the
erection of new buildings, and the other for
the issue of bonds. Second that there was
fraud in the voting, and in the returns.
There is no particular town mentioned in
the petition or bill, but it is understood
to refer to Norway, and the only evidence
taken upon that point has been in reference
to the vote in that town. The petitioners
claim that they have proved fraud by show
ing that there were more people who did
not vote than the margin between the total
names on the check list and the vote
thrown They have also put in evidence
tending to show that there were names on
the check list that did not belong there.
Although the check list was not used to
check the names of persons voting, it was
used to identify others. The petitioners also
claim that there were no more woes
thrown than were returned.
On the other hand the defense claims
that the submission of the question to the
people was entirely regular, and that there
was in reality only one question in it--that
of removal. They further claim that there
was no fraudulent voting in Norway, and
no fraud in the returns.
John P. Swasey and o. H. Hersey ap-
peared for the petitioners. A. E. Herrick
and S. s. Stearns and George D. Bisbee
appeared for the county commissioners and
George M. Atwood pro Sc.
KNoXsCoUNTY.
Clarence L. Robinson VS.. the Rockland,
Thomaston and Camden Street Railway.
Argued orally.
j. E. Moore. Fogler.
VIII. Glover Co. VS.. Mary M. Rollins.
Argued orally.
l.. R. Campbell. LittleAeld.
George H. NJ. Barrett ct ais VS.. Edwin H.
Bowers ct ais. Argued orally.
J4ittlefeld. Fogler.
The following rescript was sent down by
the Law court:
SOMERSET COUNTY.
Nelson Watson VS.. Lucy Delano, admins
traitor.
Rescript by Strout, jim suit brought
against a party as executrix de son tort, to
which the general issue had been pleaded,
and pending the action, at term subse-
quent to the entry, plea puts darrein con-
tinuance was filed, alleging that the de-
PENDANT had been duly appointed admins
tratrix of the defendent, after the action
brought, which plea was held bad on
demurrer, and by leave of court, the same
defence had been interposed by brief state
ment, and then the plaintiff discontinued
his suit without any ruling upon the matter
set up in the brief statement, or any adjudi-
cation upon the claim in suit the defendant
is the prevailing party under RS, C. so sec.
III, and entitled to costs. Exceptions sus-
tanned. Costs for defendant.