The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1896-01-11
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

The following decisions in cases pend
ing before the Law court we're sent down
yesterday:
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. NJ
James Hopkinsmith ct al VS.. Joseph
Fl. Blake.
Rescript by Strout, jim lease
which reserves an annual rental of TWEEN
ty- seven hundred dollars, and contains a
covenant OF the Lessee to pay the said rent
in equal quarterly payments of six hun
dred and twenty five dollars each, the or
roneous division Of the reserved rent does
not have the effect to reduce the rent to
twenty hundred dollars. Taken as a
whole, the lease in this case satisfactorily
shows that the rent reserved was twenty
seven hundred dollars and that its erro-
neous subdivision into quarters was
merely a mathematical mistake.
Parol evidence is not admissible to-
control or explain the provisions of the
lease Judgment for plaintiffs.
FRANKLIN COUNTY.
Eliza A. Skolfield vs. Eben H. Skolfleld
Same VS.. William s.. Robertson. Rescript
by Strout, jim the Iirst case widower
is demanded in leev parcels of land, and
it was sasigned five parcels only, as ap-
pears from the pleadings and return Of
the commissioners. The assignment was
| made upon writ of seizin and should
| have been from each parcel. 1t is said in the
argument that the writ described the real
estate from the different deeds by which
it was conveyed, and that one parcel in
fact thus appeared to be several. If this
is true, it should appear upon the face of
the proceedings, but it does not SO APP
pear. The assignment therefore is in
valid.
In the second case. the assignment Of
dover appears to be regular. Hi
Ii Sheffield VS.. Sheffield, the entry
will be, exceptions sustained. and in
Sheffield VS.. Robertson, exceptions over
OXFORD COUNTY.
Thomas Griffin VS.. David +. Murdoch.
Rescript by Strout, 1.-THE. count
specially demurred to in this case, COM
bines in one all the money counts, with
one for goods sold and delivered, work
and labor, and an account stated. 1t is
in the form long in use, and usually
denominated as omnibus count. 1t has
been sustained by practice and authority
for long time, and is good.
YORK COUNTY.
William j. Roberts vs.. Boston & Maine
Railroad company.
Rescript by Foster, 1.-THE plaintiff,
while in the performance of his duty as
brakeman, descended from the top of a
hox Car over the end next to the tender,
with face towards the car, and tried to
pull the coupling pin, with his feet on
the lower round of the ladder, and his
right hand on the second or third round,
but the pin would not come out, either
on account of crook in it. or the strain
upon it; he took hold of 1T and turning
it half way round pulled it out and laid
it down upon the dead wood; the, engine
had begun to move toward the siding and
was in motion when he pulled the pin.
He swung round in a position to go up
the ladder, and while i'll a sitting pos
turs, was caught and jalnmed against
the car by the tender, and his hip was
dislocated Held, that the evidence was
so prepouderating in favor Of the defend
ant, not only in respect to the soundness
of the car, but also in respect to the
reasonable performance of duty on the
part OF the defendant in furnishing rea-
sonably safe and proper appliances that
the jury were not justified in ~ ~ rg
"a verdict for tie plaintiff. NJ
tanned. New trial granted.
KNOX COUNTY.
Almeda ]. Wadsworth VS.. Fred P.
Marshall. Rescript by Strout, Jun
der chapter II, section %, of the Revised
Statutes it is the duty of persons en-
fore each explosion to give seasonable no.
tice thereof, for the protection OF persons
within the limits of danger. Failure to
give such notice is negligence per sc, and
renders the party liable for injuries re-
sulting therefrom, whether caused by fly
ing debris, or the frightening of horses
by the noise of the explosion.
But the defendant may show, that the
unsafe character of the horse driven by
the plaintiff, or his negligence in other
prospects, contributed to the injury. II
he does this, plaintiff cannot recover,
Notwithstanding the negligence Of de-
PENDANTS. Exceptions sustained.
G. M. Walker as. VS.. W. A. Carkln.
Rescript by Strout, 1.-The statute ex-
empts from attachment zone express
wagon. "Asvehicle suited and adapted
to the transpor tation of luggage. truck,
small paroles of merchandise, light coun.
try produce, and other light articles. and
one that may conveniently be used for
such purposes. y IS Within TIA Exemption.