Daily Kennebec journal., 1898-12-07
/ Law Court Decisions.

These decisions have been received
from the law court:
Lincoln County-Arletta Kimball VS.
Chas. s. F. Hilton ct al. Estoppel by
Judgment may be specially pleaded in
par, or 1t may be shown in evidence
under the general issue. 1t is imma-
terial which. A judgment in an action
of trespass quare clausum is not a bar
by way Of estoppel to real action. And
this is true, though the defendant III
the trespass suit pleaded soil and free
hold. The right Of possession Is the
only question necessarily determined
by Judgment in the action of tres
pass. The question of title may, or
may not be bar, it must appear that
the question now in issue was in issue
then and was decided. The plan Of the
surveyor in the trespass suit was
properly excluded, as evidence. 1t IS
the opinion of the court that the evil
dence introduced by the defendant If
believed. warranted the jury in finding
that the line claimed by her across the
ice pond is now the true line by con-
vention or disseiZin. The testimony
was conflicting. We cannot say that
the verdict is so manifestly wrong as
to justify our Intervention. Motions
and exceptions overruled.
Hancock County-Byron P. Carter ct
al VS.. Henry Clark. Held that the de-
scription of property in the deed is not
uncertain. 1t is permissible for wit
ness having knowledge, to testify
whether the lines described in a deed,
when applied to the face of the earth,
actually surround the lot. When the
predecessor in title of one claiming by
disseizin had stated that the property
assessed to him in the valuation books
of the town was all the property he
owned, and it appeared by the books
that the locus in question was not as
sessed to him, the books were admiss-
able against his successor. When one
in possession of land pays taxes upon
it, that fact has some tendency to show
the character of the occupation. 1t is
an act of ownership. And in such case.
when it is proper to show the payment
of taxes, it is also proper to show by
the valuation upon what property
taxes We're paid. When a witness has
testified to admission made by party
at certain time, it is not competent,
on cross examination to show the
character of the occupation. 1t is an
act of ownership. And in such case.
when it is proper to show the payment
of taxes it is also proper to show by
the valuation upon what property
taxes were paid. When a witness has
testified to admission made by party
at certain time, it is not competent,
on croSs-examination to show that the
party made contrary, and self
serving statement, at another time.
When title by adverse possession is in
issue, and the proof of occupation and
it's character are material If party
claims that he has paid the taxes upon
examination to show that the party
made his Homestead, he may show,
as one step in this proof, that it was
not assessed to any one else. When
party claims by adverse possession, the
| fact that the selectmen of the town
an article in warrant for a town
meeting, is inadmissible. This would
| only prove nOtoriety of claim. 1t is
notorious occupation which is one Of
| the elements necessary to constitute a
| title by adverse possession. 1t Is not
proved by reputation. Notoriety of oc-
! cupation is not to be inferred from
notoriety of claim. Exceptions over
ruled.