Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1894-07-19
THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1894.


THE AMERICAN reporter by County
Commissioner + B. Aiken, and also
TO the editorial published in this
paper last week, on the Boggy Brook
road matter MIR. Maddocks quotes
the law learing or the case. at length.
As an eminent barrister once said:
ST laws could be read only one way
there would be no need for lawyers
Possibly the law, by a strict in
terprctation. upholds Mr.. Maddocks
in the point taken by him, VIZ. that
it was only necessary for the petition
10 be presented 10 one Of the munich
pal officers. and he was that officer.
But is it not the intent of the law
that tt notice thus given to one
municipal officer. shall, through him.
reach the municipal board in order
that action may be taken on il by the
CITY? OR if not necessary to notify
the whole board. is it not incumbent
on the one notified to exhaust every
means t. prevent the city's becoming
liable? Shall the city. without being
permitted al opportunity 10 ttsil' 'ile
wrong f"'aPialhea ol' De MACE li"2ie
to Indictment because enc OF Inc
muneipa- officers chooses 10 ignore
the municipal board and holds secret
" III his POSSESSION tae complaint
made 10 'ie ely safos-A hlsa a lts
servant
Perhaps under the STREET interpreted
ton oi TIE NV tttl2 ma Is innocent
OF Wfoi2 49.iI-. be' she1e = i"91t
thah legaAl1 ihNolN ed mere L pfiii-
elple. Is he=ho1 mofa-il gullE OF ma
nrulatlh4 the once To WfiicH ne Aas
been eieesee 10Y tile accom- i'lis tiiilei19
OF his OWL private eid9, rather til'h HI
the interests 9' t5tt t''H
Let Us suppose i east ne RVS q
the State, Il we are correct! informed
by Pfo'aineE' iaWHeE OF lHls cItA.
PROVIDE 'a3e person e9Hhos OBTAIN
damages rom 4 iAuiAlel panty 10y NJ
]uTies sustained ny reason o. neglect
OF road unless lhe c1'H shaA nave
been hotined by nm OF the dangerous
eond4tlon 81 the road al least twenty
tour hours Pfof TO the tlihe OF 1he ae-
cldent. suppose such notlce had been
gwen, ana the mnhclpal oflcer VINO
had received 1t, having personal
spite against the street commissioner,
had quietly tucked II away III ms IN
side Dt9Ckt4t without making any effort
to have the danger removed. or 10 no.
uty the munlclpal board OF Its exist
ence.
An accident occurs, the city Is sued
and the plalhtih OBTAINS judgment
The plaintiff is Justly entitled to the
Judgment, as he has complied with
the law IN every respect, having
notified one municipal officer, and the
city IS responsible for the damages,
even though it had no knowledge OF
the existence of the dangerous place
in the road, prior to the accident, and
could not, therefore, be expected to
remove the danger. But does no re-
sponsiblIty-moIally, II not otherwise
attach to the municipal officer who
carried the complaint in his poke I,
MADE no attempt TO have the danger
removed, and dld not present the
matter to the municipal board o.
bring 1t to the attention OF the street
commissioners
AS we sad before, Is It not the IN
tent OF the law that municipal Off
Ger, having received a notice OF d.
fectiYe road, shall al once BRING II 10
the attention OF the muhIclpal boal9
or OF the street commissioner IN order
that proper measures TO a6ate the nui-
sance complained OF may be taken
Immediately? Did Mr.. Maddocks, aftef
receiving the compliant IN the BogSy