The Republican journal., 1896-05-21
Law Court Decisions.

Two decisions have been received from the
Law Court both of general interest out
side the counties in which they originated,
for the points OF law inv olved. One is a
Penobscot case in which the rescript fully
explains the nature of the case. 1t is State
of Name VS.. C. j. Lynch, appellant. Re-
script;
Under r. S. 30, sec. 20, as amended by
Chap. %, public laws of 1891, the possession
of but one moose during the whole of one
open season is not sufficient evidence of a
violation of law by its illegal capture as to
burden upon the respondent of explaining
such possession market man who deals
in game, as permitted by this statute, has the
same right that every other person has of
killing not exceeding one moose in one year.
And the possession by him of the carcass of
moose, at place other than his market, is
not evidence that the same was illegally
! taken or killed, notwithstanding that he
has had other moose, during the same open
season at his established place of business
for sale to local customers. Complaint dis
missed,
The other is Waldo County case,
Eunice l.. Whitcomb vs.. Daniel Dunton, in
which the parties endeavor to establish the
lines of their farms by the lines dividing the
by Judge Wiswell is as follows:
The adjudication of commissioners ap-
pointed by the court, under R. S. c. 8 sec.
70, to ascertain the lines in controversy be-
tween adjoining towns, can in no way effect
the ownership OF private property or deter
mine controversies between individuals.
The statute provides method for ascer-
tanning the location of a line in controversy
between adjoining towns and makes the de-
n q of
the court conclusive as to the location of the
town line for all purposes. But this proceed
ing was never contemplated for the purpose
of passing upon and determining private
controversies. The constitution of this State
guarantees to every one in jured in his prop
erty, a remedy "by due course of law" and
IN all controversies concerning property a
trial by jury and right to be heard by
himself or his counsel. This proceeding was
not by due course Ct law for the settlement
OF controversies concerning property, these
land owners, whose land was upon either
side OF the town line, were not parties to the
proceedings, they were not heard and could
have had no opportunity to be heard upon
the question of their respective ownerships
because the question W as not involved.
Where a line described in deed or char
ter by course does not correspond with that
indicated by monuments, either referred to
in the deed or charter, or established in the
original survey, the latter will control, be-
cause the best evidence of the true line, and
the course must yield, whenever the monu-
mentS are certain or are capable of being
made certain. But if the monuments can
not be found or their locations established,
then resort must be had to the course as the
only other description given.
Evidence of the recognition of one or the
other of two lines respectively claimed by
the parties to be the true line, by monuments
erected since the line was originally located,
and by fences and occupation is admissible
as having some tendency to show where the
line was first established, but the value and
weight of such evidence, as well as the iden-
tlty OF disputed monuments and their origi-
nal locations, are questions of fact for the
jury. Where the testimony upon these ques-
tions is conflicting the verdict of the jury
will not be disturbed unless the court is
satisfied that it was clearly wrong.
Motion and execution oyerruled.