Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-08-14
LAW COURT DECISIONS.

cisions in four cases that were heard
during The July term in Portland. One
is that of Mile A. Knowles against
John Lewis. n Piscataquis county ac-
ton for damages on account of injuries.
The plaintiffs motion is overruled and
the verdict for the plaintiff sustained.
The ,escript in this case is as follows:
This case seems to have been fairly
tried. The facts were submitted to the
determination of the jury under in
Structions of which the defendant
makes no complaint. The testimony
was very conflicting. Very much de-
pended upon the credibility of the wit
neSses. The jury saw the witnesses;
We have not seen them. The jury had
much better opportunities Of judging
of their crediblity than We possibly
can have.
While IL may be that the jury
might have been warranted in believ-
ing the testimony given by the de-
PENDANT and his witnesses. with re-
spect 10 the manner in which the
plaintiff = injuries We're caused. it is
evident that they did not believe it in
all respects. On the other hand. it is
titdl. We iililth, tlldt lllt jury were
warranted in believing the testimony
of The plaintiff and her witnesses The
defendant has failed to satisfy us that
the verdict was clearly wrong. He must
abide the result of the trial.
In the Knox county case Of A. &.
I.ittlefield. assignee. against Ephraim
Gay. the exceptions are overruled. The
Iescript says
20. A bill of exceptions must con-
tain statements of the facts or evidence
showing affirmatiVely that the ruling
excepted TO in fact deprived the ex-
CcptinS party of some legal right.
"G). Granting for the purpose Of the
argument only that notwithstanding
tn United States bankruptcy act went
into fun effect. July /. 1898. the state
insolvency court may after that date
take Cognizance of certain classes of
insolvency cases: the bill of exceptions
does not contain statements of any
facts or evidence aflirmatively showing
this case to be within any of those
Glsscs.
Two Knox county actions, in which
the same parties were involved. were
disposed Of. In the case Of Edward ].
Wardwell in equity against Henry f..
AmSden upon bill of injunction to
restrain petition in partition. the bill.
is dismissed with costs. Henry +. Ans
dcn'S action against Edward J. Ward
wen. on a petition for partition Of an
estate. is remanded To the court at nisi
priuS for further proceedings.
Tho courts opinion on the frs: ac-
tion is as follows:
The complainant and the defendant
ar" tenants in common. each owning
one undivided half part of a certain
parcel Of land described in the bill. The
defendant filed Il petition for partition
of the common property. which is now
rending. The complainant in this bill
plays that the defendant be perpetual
iy enjoinod from further prosecuting
and maintaining said petition upon the
alleged grounds. fret. that the COM
plainlnt and tho defendant have orally
agreed that that portion of the com
mon property lying between their re-
sncctivc cottage lots and tho highway
should not be divided and pctit;oncd.
hut should he perpctually held in COM
mon and undivided: and secondly. that
lit' It''i iliIl tl TIC t1itlilfil llblp'ib "
q boVc mentioned cannot be plrtitioncd
without causing the complainant irrc-
para BILE loss, damage and injustice,
vi nj that such land is therefore incapa-
BIZ o. such partition.
First: 1t may be that in case
" here certain peculiar conditions of
things exist, a court Of equity. to pre-
vent great injustice or irrepara Bile in
jury, viii enforce an oral agreement.
TraSonah bic in its terms. made between
tenants in common. that the common
Ia 1ds shall remain in common and IN
divided. But to he thus enforceable ii
must be clearly and fully proved that
such agreement was in fact made and
that it was clear and definite in its
tel ms. The testimony in this case fails
to satisfy the court that the parties
ever entered into such binding and
agreement.
Second: 1t does not appear to the
court by the testimony reported. in
Guiding plans and photographs that a
Of I'll the lands described in
th" bill will cause tho complainant ir-
or even serious less or dam
pGc.''