Daily Kennebec journal., 1901-12-13
-
THE LAW TERM.
Arguments Pro and Con in
Turner vs.. Augusta.
Eisr9A
C lief Justice Says Term Will Last at
Least Another Week.
Tryi
Sweral Important Rescripts Handed Down al
the Session Of Thursday.

the plaintiff for the sum of $69l. sc. The
contention Of the plaintiff was that
through a defect in the sidewalk in
front of the dry goods store of Bussell
Il Weston at Augusta. the plaintiff fell.
breaking bones in her wrist and caus-
iEg a dislocation of the wrist.
f. NJ Thompson. Esq. city solicitor
nf Augusta, argued the case for the de-
fendant municipality, claiming that the
defect in the sidewalk was not or a
legal nature. Attorney Thompson eX-
hibited a cast of the sidewalk and also
argued that according to that cast and
the submission of the evidence that the
city of Augusta was not liable. w. II.
Fisher. Esq, as attorney for Mrs. Tur-
ner. took the opposite view. contending
that the verdict was a just one and
that it should be maintained
4 number of Hancock county cases
were argued.
During the day several consultations
were held by the justices in executive
session.
Rescrpts were rendered in two Ken
nebec county cases. Thursday They
are as follows:
Louise Pease vs.. II. J. Bamford ana
others of Fayette. Rescript by Chief
Justice Wiswell.
It is a familiar principle that when
one person has in his possessi n monr%
VIII in equity and good c MS lie c
belongs to another. the law viii Creat4
an implied promise on the part OF such
person to pay the same to him to whom
it belongs, and in such case an action
iur money had and received may b.
maintained.
In an action for libel il appeared that
the defendants. selectmen of the town
of Fayette, published in their town re
port, among the assets of the town.
these words concerning the plaintiff;
Due from Louise Pease. three dollars.
The defendants justified. among other
defences, that the words We're true. and
if they were true that under the Re
vised Statutes. Chapter 81, Section %.
1t was complete defence.
1t appears that the defendants. in
their official capacity. where prose-
cutting matter in the probate cour /
ana had caused the plaintiff to be sum-
moned as a witness to attend that
court: the officer served the subpoena
by leaving it at the plaintiffs last and
usual place of abode with the sum Of
50 for her travel and attendance; this
sum was not the full amount she was
entitled to under the statute for her
travel and attendance: the plaintiff
was unable to attend and did not at
tend the court as a witness SubSe-
Quently the town reimbursed the Off
GER for the witness fees which he had
thus advanced. Held; that if the plain
tiff actually received the SO in question,
knowing the same to be intended as a
witness fee. and did not attend the
probate court. she was liable to repay
the same to the town.
Through some nadvertence or mis-
take, an insufficient sum of money was,
left as witness fee for the plaintiff.
She was therefore not obliged to obey
the subpoena, and was not liable for
the damages sustained by reason of he
failure to attend under the Revised
Statute, Chapter 81. Section 10, be-
cause she was not legally summoned.
But the plaintiff cannot refuse to at
tend court upon that ground and also
retain the money which she actually
received. This money in her possession
in equity and good conscience belonged
to the town and constituted a debt to
the town.
Exceptions overruled.
kennebec County. Adelia r. Wal
drOn. executrix, vs. Henry A. Priest
Rescript by Wiswell. c. J.
lin an action by an executrix to re-
cover for professional services rendered
to the defendant by her testatOr, Il
lawyer the plaintiff called as witness
TO prove the books Of account of her
testator. may be asked whether she
found the charges against the defend
ant in the account book which are the
foundation of the account annexed to
the writ.
2-Such an inquiry Of the witness is
merely Introductory. not for the pur-
pose Of showing what the charges are
but simply to call the attention Of the
witness to the particular charges in
question that they may be pointed out
10 the jury, or read from the book
after it has been put in evidence.
3-The witness may also be ask .d
whether she found any credits upon the
books against the charges The court.
IN the exercise of its discretion. may
aiiow any witness who has examined
the book to testify whether it contains
any other entry, debit or credit, in
favor of or against the defendant.
4-Thls inquiry is only for the pur-
pose OF obtaining Il reply in the mega
i've, matter of convenience merely
and to prevent the necessity of an ex-
ANIMATION of the whole book. which
aefehdants counsel has A right to
make, II not satisfied with the answer.
BIT is the well-settled and long
aohered to rule in this State not to al
low a money charge of more than 40
shiliings, S6.61. to be proved by a book
account as independent evidence.
6-The defendant, also LAWYER.
onered in evidence his office docket
winch contained this memorandum;
Nov. IL. 1885, paid F. A. W. s25 which
settles to date as per agreement" This
DOCK and certain inquiries relating to
the time when the entry was made
were excluded by the court. Held.
tnat the rulings are right. The entry
was not a charge Of goods delivered. or
services rendered which for the pur-
pose OF preventing failure of instice
Is admitted in evidence as an excen-
uoh 70 the general rule. 1t was merely