The Portland daily press., 1896-07-31
SUPREME JUDICIAL 1 COURT.
Law Term-Western District.

Law Term-WeStern DISTRICT.
: Two Cumberland county cases were
argued Wednesday In the forenoon and
in the afternoon the In embers OF the
Court were in consultation.
| kThe cases argued orally were: lda ..
| Woodbury. in Equity against Matlldh "a.
| Marsh, wherein Mrs. Woodbury. claims
that she borrowed $500 of Mrs. Marsh ana
gave her note payable with Interest,",
and as security for its payment assigned
life insurance policy on the life OF ner
husband, Clinton A. Woodbury., Wnloh
policy was payable to her, Mrs. Wooo,
bury. She says the policy was assianeu
for no other purpose than the security OF
the payment of the note. But after the
note was paid Mrs. Marsh declined to oe-
liver up the policy claiming that 10 was
assigned also to secure a large lnuepGeo-
ness from Clinton "A. Woodbury. to nef-
sell and her husband Albion r. Marsh.
These We're argued by Hon. hiram
| knowlton for Mrs. Woodbury., and Hon.
George ID. Bisbee for Mrs. Marsh
BnJamin Il. Woodbury. against Port
land Marine Society and others Is Dill
in Equity wherein the complainant seeks
to put q stop to the defendant society US
Ing portion of the funds belonging to
| 1t, for an annual BANQUET.
On the part of the society 1t is claimed
that therannual banquet is in the nature
orsa legitimate expense, necessary to Keep
| up the Interest in the society, fand thac
slncesits inauguration the membership
has actually increased, and thereby the
fund augmented.
&. W. Freeman argued for the COM
plaiuant, and Hiram Knowlton for the
society.
Chief Justice Peters has been called
away for few days and Judge Wiswell
is sitting to make ND the six which con-
stitute full bsnch.
Somerset and Knox county cases were
in order.
Melvin r. Baldwin VS.. H. Chester
Emery, executor. Argued orally.
Johnson & MoBaddsn for plaintiff.
Merrill q Gowen for defendant.
Maine Central Railroad Company
against Wateryille & Fairfield Railroad
and Light Comany.
This is an appeal from the decision Of
the Railroad Commissioners that the ex-
pense. of pulling in new or ossing frogs
whers the the electric road crosses the
| railroad, shall be borne by the Electric
| Railroad Company.
| The Electric Railroad Company ad-
miss that electric railroads have paid
| for crossing frogs in the first instance
when electric railways have been con-
structed ACROSS steam railways and when
the electric railways have been construct
cd across steam railways, and when the
electric road was the last one located.
But they claim that however that may
be, this Is new and different question.
That this electric company paid for the
crossing frogs several years ago; these
| frogs have bscome SO worn that they are
dangerous to public travel. and now un-
der the statute the Railroad Commission
ers should apportion fairly between the
| two railroad companies the expense OF
their future maintenance; that the cleo
trio company ought not to bs compelled
to forever maintain the crossing frogs.
| W. L. Haines for the Electric Railway.
| e. f. Webb for the Maine Central
! I. 0. Winslow vs.. Snow Flake Canning
| Company. This is a suit for an account
annexed to recover s647.50 for 35, 600
pounds of corn to the defendants factory
at st. Adams. The defence Is payment,
or rather, they flv note signed by the
plaintiff and Others given to the defen-
dant company for $500.
| +. W. Hovey for plaintiff.
D. D. Stewart for defendant.