The Republican journal., 1901-03-14
Law Court Decisions.

Tileston Wadlin, Esq, Cletk of Courts,
his received from the Law Court the certi-
fcations of opinion in the following Waldo
County cases:
Inhabitants of Monroe vs. Inhabitants of
Hampden. This was an action on a bill for
pauper supplies furnished to James HI.
The defense was that PomerOy was, at the
time the supplies were furnished, a resident
OF SWanville. The case was first tried at
the September term, 1899, and good deal of
evidence was introduced as to POmefOy's 8
movements from the time he was q years
old as tending to show whether or not he
had gained a pauper settlement in any other
town than Hampden, in which he derived a
| settlement from his father. The verdict was
| for the plaintiff for the amount sued for.
! A motion for new trial was addressed to
the presiding Judge, who set aside the ver--
dict and ordered a new trial. The second
trial was at the January term, 1900, also
| with verdict for the plaintiff, $2369. Ex-
ceptiOns and motion for a new trial were
| filed, and the case was heard at the Law
term in Bangor in June, 1900.
ReScrlpt. In this case the pauper had
| his original derivative settlement in the de-
fendant town, which claimed that he had
acquired new settlement by having his
home in the town of S. for period Of five
successive years at two different times.
There was evidence tending to show that
during the first period relied upon he left
that town and went into another and there
voted, was taxed and paid taxes that during
the second period he left the town of S. and
went to another town in search of employ
ment which he obtained, without anyinten-
tion as to returning, that his intention in that
respect was uniformed and undetermined.
On each occasion he took with him all that
he possessed, l"aving behind him neither
property, family, or visible sign of a home.
Held, that this evidence if believed would
Justify finding by the jury that on each oc-
casion there was an abandonment of the
pauper'S former place OF residence in S.
| Voting, and taxation acquieSced in and
affirmed by the payment of the tax, are acts
OF much stronger prObative force when relied
upon to prevent the gaining of pauper
| settlement, than when offered to establish
| one.
When the evidence is conflicting and un-
certain, new trial will not be granted
| when to do so would be to substitute the
judgment of the Court for that of the jury
| as to pure questions of fact about which
Intelligent and conscientious men might
have different views. Motion overruled.
Judgment on the verdict.
| Ida L. Burgess VS.. Reuel Robinson. The
| plaintiff claims to recover possession of a
/ certain real estate by virtue of tax title,
and the decision contains points of interest
! to all who are concerned with tax matters
Rescript In the assessment which estab-
llShed the lien on land and forms the basis
of subsequent proceedings, there must be
definite and distinct description of the land
upon which the tax is intended to be as
| sessed. This requirement is not obviated,
nor the rule modified by the amendatory act
of 1895, Chap. 10, relating to sales of land for
non-payment of taxes.
In the collectors return to the town clerk,
with particlar statement of his doings,''
under the caption description of property"
are found only the words son Brown road"
No attempt whatever is here made to give
any description or designation of the land
sold. Such an entire omission to describe
the land in this return must be deemed fatal
to the validity of the sale and of the title
which the collector sought to pass by his
deed to the town.
The deed from the town to the plaintiff is
also imperative to give the plaintiff valid
title as against the defendant. 1t must be
treated in law as if made to the husband and
if it had been made to him it would have
had the effect, as against the defendant to
eXtlngulsh the tax title in the same manner
that release from the town before the eX-
pration of the two years would have DONE
Judgment for the defendant.