The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-04-26
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

The following decision from the Law
court was announced Saturday:
Alden Bradford vs.. Charles W. Hume
| ct al.
Rescript by Walton, J.-This is an
| action of trespass against the mayor and
one of the alttermen.of the city of East
| port for causing the removal Of fence
in front of the plaintiffs house. The de.
| PENDANTS justify the removal on the
ground chat the fence was within the
limits Of the street. The plaintiff denies
that the fence was within the limits OF
the street.. He says that the bounds OF
either records or monuments, and that a
fence had existed in the same place Tor
more than forty years, and was therefore
| to be deemed the true bounds Of the
street, as provided by K. S. @. 49, ss, '95.
There seems to be no doubt that fence
had existed in front CT the Eplaintiff Is
house TOR more than forty years. But the
| plaintiff admits that fence was built il
| 1876, and the real controversy was
whether thu new fence was built IN the
same place on which the old fence stood,
or was built some three or four feet near
er the center line of the street.
| The fence fronted on one of the public
| streets of the city, and il it was moved
thiee or four feet into tho street, the fact
WAS Opotl 10 bH0 UUG6fFaGlUE u Ill pass
| ing by it; and it would seem as if ii
must have boon known to hundreds and
perhaps thousands of persons. The street.
as laid out in 1907, was only thirty feet
| wide; and it seems incredible that snoh
an encIoaehmeIt npon street so narrow
should have escaped the notice OF anyone
passing upon the street. The carpenter
who built the new fence swears positive
ly that he placed it ON the same spot oo-
| ms ai.ad l,r,+ b.f hQ f1Ip init
swears that it WAS so placed. Other wit
nesses SO testify. The number Of wit
nesses who testify TO the contrary are
comparatively few. The parties called as
many witnesses as they thought proper
and then rested. The cese was then sub
intted to the jury, ard they returned a
verdict for the plaintiff. No exceptions
were taken to the charge, and presuma-
bly, il was satisfactory to h0th parties.
The defendants move for new trial,
first, on the ground that the verdict was
contrary to the weight of the evidence
produced at the trial, and, secondly, on
the ground that since the trial, they have
discovered some new evidence-that is,
some more witnesses who are willing to
swear that the fenco was moved.
We have examined the evidence, the
old and the new, with great care. In
fact, we have spent All unusual amount
of time IN the examination of tho evil
dence. And we are surprised that there
should be suGh conflict in relation to
such fact; fact that must have been
open to the observation of hundreds, aud
perheps thousands Of persons If it really
existed. We think 1t WAS fortunate for
the parties that the jury was able to
agree; and we are profoundly impressed
With the belief that it would be a mis-
fortune to the defendants as we'll as the
DIaintiff to protract the litigation. We
do not feel entirely satisfied tbat the YER
dict was right: nor do ne feel entirely
satisfied that it WIS wrong In such 4
case, the verhict must stand The evil
dence claimed TO ba newly discovered is
not such, in the opinion of the court. as
to Justify protracting the litigation.
Motions overrDled.