Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1900-12-05
LAW COURT DECISIONS.
Two Androscoggin County and Two
York County Cases Decided.

The supreme court, Monday, handed
down four reseripts. all written by
Judge Strout. The first. an Andros-
coggin county case. Roswell c. Boothby
agains, Francois LascaSSe. related 10
expert testimony" The court said IN
part:
a jury of practical men is fully
.apa Die of judging the course OF the
fire from the appearances on the
ground. direction of the wind, lndlca-
lions upon the trees not wholly con-
sunncd. and all other existing condi-
,tons No special skill. study or train
ing hcvond that of the ordinary man
of common intelligence and experience
10 roauirad or involved. 1t Is not a
s,,bi,ct for expert testimony. Excep-
lions overrulcd.'
The second AndroscOggin county
case was that of John K. Heslan
against Joseph Rergeron. The court
said:
THE notes in suit We're payable ar
rho First National Bank in Lewiston
They were not presented at the bank
before suit was brought 1t was not
necessary TO do so. If the maker was
ready to pay them on presentation AT
III. bank. that could be shown in de-
Tense.
This action is by the indorsec
against the maker The ruling that TIL.
maker of the notes was an incompetent
witness 10 prove their Illegal incep-
lion. until notice of such illegaity was
brought home TO the plaintiff. was cor
rect
The rule is different when the action
note. Exceptions overruled.
Thu. third, a York county case, was
that Of Alonzo Allen against the Bos-
ION A. Maine Railroad. The rescript
was as follows:
Whether the injury received by IN"
nIaintilf was caused by the negligence
Of the defendant, without fault on the
mart Of the plaintiff. was the issue SUD-
ntted to the jury The evidence was
conflicting. The jury found the issue
in favor Of the plaintlff. IL may ne
,hot me court would have arrived at
g, different conclusion. but we are not
nj liberty to substitute our judgment
for that of the jury, when IS thc con
stiturional tribunal 10 determine 'he
facts. No sufficient ground for di"-
rurbing the verdict IS present. MOTION
oVcrrulcd.
The fourth case, that or Ada Z. NC
Kennie against Leroy ;. BOWIE an"
others. came to the supreme court from
York county and is Of special import
,ncc because relating To the response
bilitv OF members of unincorporat'u
associations The court SAID:
1T is the opinion OF the court tAat
rho note in suit was the individual
1,rornisc Of the signcrs: but if regarded
rs that Of the Durham Agricultural
Society. the evidence fails to sno" thaI
war society was n corporation, there
for, All members of the association
were liable upon legal contracts naue
nv it. Defendants We're members OF Ihc
upincorporated association ana as Such
bound by its contracts. they nave not
iut.rposnd the objection that DINERS
liable were not joined in the SUIT. Inc!
are therefore, liable for the whole ucpt
in his suit unless some other defense
Is available.
The statute of limitations is plead
"a The note was given July !, 1881,
,,aval,le in one wear. and a suit was
brought March l. 1899. Various pay
,n.nts were made and endorsed on the
note. the last being in 1896. One other
navment Of S2l90 was made on NoV.
4. 1897. which is not Endorsed. nut
should be allowed. All the payments
were made by Charles II. Bliss. one OF
the signers. Nothing was ever paid by
either Of the other Signers. AS 10 MIN
the note is taken out of the statute.
As to all the others it is barred. Judg-
ment for plaintiff against Charles II.
Bliss for amount of note. less indorse-
ncnts and less $3.50 paid Nov. (. 1897,
and not indorsed. Judgment for all
other defendants"