The Portland daily press., 1899-08-23
THE LAW COURT.
Several interesting decision. ua..ses
Down Yesterday,

Down Yesterday.
The following rsscripts wers received
yesterday:
The City Of Reekland VS.. Lucy @.
ssl EssS'P HsSS Ss dssScGis o sg!s
property. II WAS resisted upon the ry6IiI;d
that defendant wqs not an inhabitant Of
Rockiand on April !, 1894. the year for
which the tax was assessed. On trial
defendant introduced without objection.
the assessors records from 1886 TO 1888
Inclusive, from which 1t Appeared that
TOR those years she vas not taxed as An
| inhabitants OF RocklAnd. This evidences
II ohjectsd to, should have been excluded,
Assessors are not agents Of the town, but
public officers. Their acts In emitting TO
assess tax against an individual are but
expressions OF their opinion, and not only
do not include the town as to the fact Of
residence, but are not entitled 10 be con.
sidered as evidence upon THAT question
The Instructions to the jury to the effect
that no weight should ne given to it,
were correct Exceptions oyerruled.
Lincoln, IS.
Fremont ]. Cotton VS.. Humphrey d.
Webster
Rsscript-Per Curlam. The plaintiff
was arrested upon charge OF larceny and
brought before the defendant, a trial
justice. Upon being arralngsd, he pleaded
not guilty and waived examination. The
magistrate then proceeded to call and ex-
anime witnesses for the government,
against the objection OF the plaintiff. be-
cause Of the absence of the complainant.
After continuing the examination for
about an hour, this being upon Saturday,
he adjourned thxhearing until the fol-
I'm Monday NM la.
tiff to the custody of n deputy sheriff to
appear at the adjourned hsaring.
The deputy sheriff left the plaintiff in
the custody of his 1.-THE plaintiff 50 father,
who agreed to produce him at the ad
journed hearing The plaintiff did not
then appear.
In this action of trespass for false Inn
prisonment the plaintiff ceased to recover
damages for his detention during the first
hearing and the adjournment after he
had waived examination. The Justice
prssiding at the trial ruled that these
facts would not authorize the maintenance
OF the action and ordered u non-suit. We
think tho ruling was correct. Ihe magis-
trate had jurisdiction of the person and
OF the crime; In examining witnefsss,
after the waving Of the examination by
the plaintiff, and In anjourning the hear
Ing to the following Monday, he was aot-
ing in his Judicial canaofty. II In the ex-
sroise OF his judicial discretion, he deemed
it advisable 60 acquaint himself with the
facts of the case before passing sentence
anu before taking bail IN case of an ap-
peal, IL was not improper for him to do
SO and be cannot be made liable therefor
The plaintiff now complains because he
was not admitted TO bail to appear at the
aujournsd hearing, but the oase does not
show that he offered to give bail 1t ia
| too late 20 make the complaint now. Ex-
captions overrule1,
Knox IS.
Edwin =. Thorndike, admr., VS.. Bred
w. Andrews.
Rescript--,fhe only evidence offered az
showing title to the bond in the plain
THIS inteBtate at the time of her decenss
was the admission of the defendant that
the deceased had In her lifetime trans
fsrrsd the bond to him as a gift. This
evidence rather tends to show that she
parted with the title prior to her Glecesse
and did not then possess It,
Exceptions overruled. Non suit con-
flrmed.
Knox, IS
Annie r. Patterson VS.. City OF Rock
land.
Rsscript-Per Durham. The evidence in
the case was conflicting, but that in be-
halr Of the plaintiff, IL believed. was
| sufficient to authorize verdict In her
favor. In the opinion Of the court the
verdict was not 30 manifestly wrong as
W lusbaAy buc OIucE1HB u u new UrlAls
Motion oyerruled. Judgment on the
verdict.
Knox, rs.
John H. LArrabee, in equity rs. HAIRY
NJ. jackson.
Rescript-The bill in equity is brought
to enforce specific performance of an
agreement in writing to convey real
estate. Abe complaint conveyed, by
voluntary conveyance. the real estate in
question to the defendant, and now
claims that at the time of tho conveyance
and as part Ct the transaction, the de-
PENDANT agreed in writing to reconyey on
demand. The writing. If any there was,
is lost. The defendant denies there was
any such writing or any agreement what
ever to reconvey. The presiding justice
hearing the evidence and seeing the
PARTIES and witnesses found that the de-
PENDANT did, in writing. agree TO reconyey,
substantially as set forsh in the bill, and
ib is the opinion of the court that tne evil
dence sustained the finuing.
The defendant alsl claims that the CON-
veyance to her was made with the intent
to prevent Its being attached by creditor
of the complainant and so, fraudulent
and that for this reason, the complainant
g not entitled TO Peoonveyanoe. The
presiding justice found the fact to- be
otherwise. IL Is noticeable that the de.
PENDANT In her evidence nowhere testiiies
that such was the purpcss of the convey
ance, though IL is evident that IL the
transaction had been fraudulent In that
| respect, she must have known It,
The burden Is upon the de'eudant In
this appeal, to show clearly that the find
ings OF the presiding Justice, In matters
OF act, were erroneous, aud this she b 8
failed to do. Appeal dismissed Decree