The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1899-07-21
THE LAW COURT.



The Law court was engaged yesterday
In the consideration Of York county
cases.
Yesterday morning the suits Of Ham vs..
City OF Lewiston were orally argued.
Next In order were the York county
cases In all 40. 1hs action a. Goodwin
vs.. Small ct al, executors, was dismissed.
J. o. bradbury for the plaintiff; +. n.
Higgins for the defense.
Allie VS.. Nadsau was orally argued BY
n. W. Hovey for thu defenss and b. +.
Cleavss for the plaintiff. It IL IN action
on contract for wnges coming up from
sbe January nisI prius term. where plain
TIL recovered, on defendants exceptions
90 presiding Justices ruling that previ-
Gus Judgment for part of the amount sued
for was not bar to future action on con.
tract.
Andrews, petitioner, vs.. The Biddeford
Police board will be argued In writing
and are Of an identical nature. Tho mat
ter, which is of great intsrest as testing
the scope Of. the state police boards au.
thority, is as foil ows:
List fall number OF POLICE officers
whose names had been included in tho
list OF 'speoiala'' were dropped from the
force. Among them were several who
o tsw weeks before had signed pstition
TO the poiics commissioners asking for
to- removal Of City Marshal Charlss b.
Harmon. These men ACCUSED the mar
shai Of being at the bottom of the com.
missioners' action, and claimed that
under the rulss OF the commission they
could not be removed without being given
a hearing. A petition for q writ of GER
tiorari, compelling the commissioners TO
show cause for their action, was presented
to Judge Srout and he issued tho writ
petitioned for.
The defense Of tho commissioners was,
that the board had exceeded its authority
In appointing polics officers in excsss of
tho limit established by the city ordi-
nances, in any event the board was justi-
| lied in making removals under provision
of n rnle giving tho commissioners au-
thority to reduce the numbsr of officers
"to make the police force more effective"
The next action to be- taken up was
Bssse vs.. 1.-The Newickiwanick company OF
south Berwick. 1t was oraiiy argued.
Varney. Gowell. George and Leroy
Haley for the plaintiff; Yeaton for the
defense. It Is an action of tort for $50
600.
The plaintiff Howard Besse, boy IL
years old, fell into vat Allied with boil.
ing water, and burned both of his eyes
80 badly that the fiesh has withered and
thers is scarcely more than than the bone
remaining. The case comes to the Jaw
court by agreement of counsel. The plain
tiff contends that the defendant corpora
tion was negligent in two particulars:
First, In the construction of its vat and
secondly In falling to notify the plaintiff
OF the dangers of snch construction land
of the safest way to work around 1t, tina
plaintiff being OF such Immature age
that he did not appreciate the danger of
the work he WAS set to perform. -
Ths defendant argued that the con-
struotion of the vat was not faulty and
that there was contributory negligence
on the pant of the plaintiff. Decision
reserved.
The case of Bridges VS.. Bridges wns
next taken up. John q. Stewart of York
appeared for the defendant and Haley
and Haley for the plaintiff. This case
comes up on plaintiffs exceptions to
non-suit ordered by the presiding justice
on the ground that the contract upon
which the suit was brought was consum-
mated on the Sabbath day.
The plaintiff, John E. Bridges of York
bought q horse Of the defendant, Alfred
Bridges. the plaintiffs uncle. John
Bridges claimed that the defendant had
warranted the horse to be safe and sound.
A few days after the purchase the horse
had a 1T and the plaintiff brought suit
to recover the money paid for the horse.
The defendant contends that the contract
was not binding as 1t was made on Sun
day.
The case OF John Drew OF South Ber-
wick against the Boston and Maine rail-
road was argued orally ana consumed the
balance of the afternoon. Hamilton and
Cleaves appeared for the plaintiff and
Yeaton for the defendant corporation.
This is suit growing out Of q claim for
damages brought by John Drew for the
overflow of his lani from the building of
q railroad bridge too narrow over ths
Great Works river. In the lower court
John Draw was given SIS damages. The
defendant corporation entered a motion
| for new trial and took the case to the
| law court.