The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1899-07-20
THE LAW COURT.
Judge Fosters Illustration and enc ne.
ply ofthe chief Justice.


Miliken VS. Houghton, an old entry,
was continued.
The frst case to be argued was that OF
Frank Stanley ct ais. seleotmen Of Rcx-
bury, appellants. vs.. Decision OF the
county commissioners OF Oxford county.
James 5. Wright. respondent's attorney;
John p. swasey for the plaintiff This
was an appeal from the decision OF the
county commissioners OF Oxford upon
their refusal to make an alteration in q
located but unconstructsd road through
the town of Roxbury. 1t comes.cn ex-
csptions to the ruling of the presiiing
justice at the Oxford February term in
allowing the entry OF an appeal and its
prosecution. as provided by the statute
from the decision Of the said county COM
missioners. Decision reserved.
The next matter to be argued was the
case OF State VS.. Willis Burbank. County
Attorney Harlow for the state; Enoob
Foster for the appellant. This case came
up on exceptions to conviction Tor
single sale at the October Oxford nisi
prius term. The admitted facts Of the
case were as follows: Burbank was at.
tending a dance and while there he was
approached by stranger who inquired IL
Burbank knew where drink could be
obtained. He replied In the affirmative
and the stranger handed him dollar
with the request that he should purchase
for him pint Of whiskey. Burbank
bought the whiskey as requested, and re-
turned 1t to the man with quarter in
change. The transaction was witnessed
by spotter who procured Burbank ar
rest On the charge of single sale and he
was indicted AMI convicted upon that
charge. in accordance with the above out
lined facts. The presiding justice ruled
that any person in any way participating
or assisting in the sale of liquor was
liable TO conviction under. the statute de-
timing single sale. This the appellant
claimed was not the spirit or the letter of
the law.
Judge Foster argued for the appellant
and concluded with this very amusing
Illustration; "Suppose your honor" he
said, addressing Chief Justice Peters,
that you were to hand Gen. Hamlin
ACAtHA WAth th1 AC4druo w w O nOSSt
and procure pint OF whiskey, and he
should follow your instructions. By the
ruling OF the presiding Justice at this
trial you would be equally liable with
this respondents 60 Indictment for single
sale. = mir. Foster Justice Peters re-
piled. 81 appreciate your point and can
see the logic Of the situation. MIR. Clerk,
80 M a r.
ceptions are sustained"
The Androsooggin cases were taken up
and the list was very rapidly decreased.
The case of State VS. Hutching=. alias.
etc.. was mol pressed. Swasey and Briggs
for the defense.
The action of Belts VS.. Merrill was
settled below and snisentsy was esse1ea
recorded. James Pnlsifer for the PLAINTIFF;
John A. Merrill for the defendant
bradford vs. Plnard, ct al, was settled
and neither.party entered. e. NJ. Briggs
for the plaintiff; NJ. L. Lezotte for the
defense.
In the nstion Of Cleary VS.. Creedon, adj
minislratrix. the DEFENDANTS motion was
overruled for want of prosecution. Nc
0l1alC0A0l ~ aOAC1 IVA tue ocACAnCs
Newell & Shelton for the plaintiff.
In the action OF Herbert. appellant, VS..
Saunders, the APPELLANTS motion was
overruled for want of prosecution. Newell
and Skslton for this plaintiff; Smith and
pulsifer for the defense. Judgment at
September term by agreement of parties.
In the action OF Hutchius VS.. Davis, the
plaintiff argued orally and defense will
submit brief during the term. George f.
Miller for the defense. The case of Jordan
ct al, VS.. MCCARTHY ct al was argued
orally. Wing for the plaintn; MoGiili-
cuddy 81 Morey for the defense.
4 In Larocque VS.. Whitehouse the motion
was overrulsd for want of prosecution.
Newell and SkeIton McGllliouddy and
Moary. attorneys.
Lisbon VS.. Winthrop was orally argued
by Leroy Carlton for the plaintiff and
George Wing for the defense.
Narcotic VS.. City of Lswiston was
orally argued by Lizotte for the plaintiff
and Holmes for the defense.
In the afternoon the court rapidly dis
posed of the AndrosoogGin liquor cas,s,
the entry In each case being exceptions
overruled and case renanded for
sentences"
In the case Of Provost ct ais vs.. Piche,
aplt. and IT., the attorneys were Mo
|Gillicuddy and Mercy. The case was arr
gued oyally, the decision being reserved s
Tbs case Of Thompson Tvs. Cooling was
also argued orally AID the decision was
reserved. This attorneys were James s.
Wright and Newell and SHELTON.
The case of White vs. Savage ct al was
argued orally. the decision being reserved
The attorneys were Provost and WARMER
and Oaks.
This completed the Androeooggip
docket. This morning. the court will take
up the YORK county docket
YORK COUNTY DOCKET.
Today the court will take up the York
county docket which includes many in
tsresting cases. Besides large number
of liquor cases which have come up on de-
ki,ora ...o,,v atlaro t,,t.