The Portland daily press., 1899-08-03
1t win Be in Session a Week
Longer.


@tCAs&ts'teAs n NoAtatSe 80 Wv " e4 AZ
covered at nisi prius and from this YER
dict the dsfense excepts on account OF
amendment of plaintiffs declaration al
lowed by the presiding justice nt the
trial. LittleBsld for the plaintiff; Mort
land g. johnson for the defense.
Next followed the action OF John II.
Larrahee in equity Va. Mary NJ. jackson;
bill brought to compel defendant to
convey to the plaintiff certain real estate
in accordance with her alleged written
agreement Mt time Of tho conveyance by
virtue of which sha agreed to rsconvey to
him at any time on demand certain prop
erty free of all inaumbrancss put on by
her. Chief Justice Peters decreed the
prayed-for reconveyance OF the property
peals. Littleneld for the plaintiff; J. II.
& G. o. Montgomery for the defense.
Hdwin II. ThoTndike, administrator of
the estate of Lucy Thcrndike, vs.. Fred
W. Andrews Is an action In trover to re-
cover value of $500 bond alleged to have
been the proper ty of his intestate at time
of her decaase and later converted to his
own use by the defendant. A non suit
was1,rdered at nisi prius and to this the
plaintiff excepts, Montgomery for plain
tiff; Littleheld for defsnse.
Marston VS.. Ihe Travellers Insuranc,
company will be argued In writing. In
State vs.. Lynde and fivs other appealed
liquor cases the defendants' exception,
have been overruled.
Albert L Dutch VS.. The Bodwell Gran
lite company. This Is an action brought
! to recover from the defendant company
damages for personal injuries, alleged to
have been sustained through the defect
i've construction Of dray used by them
In the transportation OF stons an driven
by the plaintiff. At nisi prius verdict
tor SLED was recovered and to this ver :
dict the defense excepts.
| This completes the Knox county docket,
following which comes Lincoln county.
In the action of HHda Burnside Va.
James e. Mullisan 1t has been agreed
that defsndant's exceptions shall be oyer
ruled and Judgment on verdict Is record
ed by agreement. Hilton s. Hilton for
tho plaintiff; Prince s. Hall for tha de-
| fense.
In the afternoon the case of Fremont j.
Cotton per pro ami VS. Humphrey K.
Webster was argnsl. This is Lincoln
county case. The plaintiff brought suit
for false arrest and the presiding justice
ordered u non suit. The case comes 10 the
law court on exceptions. The defendant
Is trial justice In New Castle and upon
complaint issued his warrant for the ar
rest of the plaintiff on the charge of lar
csny. of goods alleged to be of the,value of
$40. The plaintiff was arrested and
brought before the defendant rs trial
justice fer Edgecomb ON Saturday, Feb
ruary 4, 1892 Prior to going before the
trial justice the plaintiff consulted w.
ID. Hilton, an attorney, who wrote the
defendsnt letter tn which he said that
he had a cold and could not attend the
trial but had instructed Fremont to plead
not guilty end waive examination. He
said that he had written to the trial JUS
tice so that 1t might be understood what
was wanted and'so that the plaintiff might
not be misunderstood.
The plaintiffs attorney argued that
this lstter was delivered to the defendant
before plaintiffs trial began. The plain
tiff introduced evidence tending to prove
that the defendant opened his court. read
said letter, stated that he would uss the
plaintiff just as well as If Mr.. Hilton
| were there; that the plaintiff waived the
| reading Of the complaint and pleaded
that he was not guilty; that the defen-
1 do MT he. lot rlo,.
had right to waive examination and
asked him If he wishsd to do SO, and the
plaintiff replied that he did; that the de-
fendanJ did not thereupon sentence the
plaintiff as provided In Chap. 255, LAWS
of 1885, but oalIsd and examined wit
nesses; that tho plaintiffs father, for
him, objectsd to the examination on the
ground that the oomplainsns was not
present, which was true; that the defsn-
dant oysrrulsd the objssuion; that after
continuing the examination for time
variously estimated from half an hour
TO one hour and thres quarters, the de-
fendant adjourned the hearing to the fol-
lowing Monday at his own house In New
| castle, ana committed the plaintiff to the
SNSbcNt Va q doPusJ cnoEAns Au6 u5DubY
sheriff placed the plaintiff in charge Of
the p,aintiff's father as kesper. the latter
agreeing to produce him at the time and
plsce to which the hearing was ad-
journed The plaintiff however did not
appear at the adjourned meeting. The
holding in custody and ths restraint of
the llbarty Of the plaintiff during the
hearing after he had waived examination
and afterwards in the custody Of the odl-
Ger is this imprisonment complained of.
The plaintiff subject to defendants OBJ
jcction, .also introduced evidence tending
to prove that on "a prior occasion, In the
case of State VS.. Wiliiam.R. NJ cNear In
1928, ths rslpon IL Mt waived hearing,
pleaded not guilty, and thereupon this
same defendant as trial justise proceed