The Portland daily press., 1896-12-16
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
Law Term-Western District.

| Law 1srn1- w est Gil olcuhl
| The following respripts were sent down
by the law court yesterday: S
Thomas Dinsmore VS.. Joseph Abbott ct
al.
Rescirpt, Wiswell, 1.-THE plaintiff left
| in defendants storehouse, with their
consent, o quantity of beans. Ihele
wa; no agreement for compensation, ann,
so far as the case shows, neither OIL 0he
| parties expected that any compensation
| for the storage would be required. The
defendants were not warehouse men, the
storehouse being used by them for their
own purposes in connection with UDelr
business us retail traders. The plaintiff
alleges tnaJ the defendants refused TO de-
| liver the property stored, upon demand.
Held; That the burden was upon the
plaintiff, in the fist inSta ace to prove
such refusal; that Il this had been done
he would have made out prima facie
case, ana it would have been incumbent
upon the defendants to explain the cause
of their refusrl, as by showing the loss OF
the property by theft or burglary, or It's
destruction by fire or otherwise. That
then IL would have been incum bent upon
the plaintiff to show that the loss or de-
struction occurred by reason OF the de-
fendant's failure to exercise such degree
of care of the property as the law rec Gulres
| of gratuItous bailee.
Also held ;That the plaintiff had failed
TO sustain tho burden resting upon him
| and that the verdict in his favor was
not authorized.
Motion sustained. New trial granted.
Pesobscot, ss
William Klien vs. Crosby Q. Howe,
| Rescript, (No Opinion). Wiswell, D.
| This ia AN action to recover damages LOT
/ f,1z %n+ Ion. rpda
| defendant as to the character OF the Iarin
sold by hiw to the plaintiff. rho piain-
tiff recovered verdict for $1675, and the
defendant moves to set the verdict aside
because against evidence and Eeoause the
damages are excessive.
The court is of the opinion that the
evidence clearly authorized verdict ior
the plaintiff, and that the amount OF the
verdict is not so manifestly excessive as
to warrant its disturbance
Tbs defendant in this action has re-
| covered two verdiotS against this plaM-
tiff in actions upon certain notes given
in the same transaction. The cases came
to the law court upon exceptions wnlch
have been oyerruled and Judgmsn5 IN
each case will be ordered upon the YER
| dict. The announcement OF the decision
being made simultaneously with this an
nouncement. Counsel for the defendant
in this case has moved that the Judg-
ncnts in favor of this defendants, when
recovered, both amounting to less sum
than the amount Of the Judgment IN this
case, be set off against this Judgment,
pro tanto. This should be done, but not
as to affect the attorneys lien upon the
| taxable costs in each case.
As the cases are pending in different
counties, this set-off of judgments is or,
iered by the law court. The entry Will
therefore be:
Motion overruled. Judgment upon the
verdict. 1he two judgments recovered
by this defendant against this plaintiff
in Somerset county and ordered by the
law court simultaneously herewith. to
be set off pro tanto against the Judgment
in this case, except as TO the taxable
costs in the Somerset cases upon which
the plaintiffs attorney, in those cases.
| has O lien.
Execution to issue for the balance.