Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-03-18
Annual Report Submitted at
Closing Meeting Of Year.
Work Of the Law Department has
Been Extensive.
Number Of Cases Handled BY Solicitor
Thompson During Year.

the city auditor, and was as follows:
To the Honorable Mayor and City Coun-
Gil of the City of Augusta
| Gentlemen: In compliance with the
provisions of Section of Chapter II of
the Revised Ordinances, | have the honor
herewith to submit the following report
of the law department for the municipal
year ending March first, 1902
The cases pending against the city at
| the beginning of the year were as follows:
| City of Gardiner VS.. City of Augusta
Superior Court, kennebec County
Josiah A. Norton VS.. City of Augusta
Supreme Judicial Court, Kennebec Coun-
ty.
The case of the City of Gardiner VS.. the
City of Augusta was an action to recover
| for pauper supplies furnished to Low
| ma MoranE, the widow of one Andrew Mo-
rang. The question at issue was the pau
per settlement of the said Andrew Mo-
| rang from whom his widow derived har
| settlement. The supplies were furnished
| in 1892. The amount sued for was $50 3D.
The action was entered at the April term
| Of the Superior Court of kennebec Coun-
| - in 1897. The case was assigned for trial
at the June term of said court in 1891
| To this case there was absolutely no de
| fence. After several days of patient and
| rainstakng effort l became convinced
| beyond all Sh ldow of doubt. that the set
| tlcmont of Mnrang was in the City of Au-
| Eust1. in arriving at this conclusion !
| was aided b. evidence of the most Con-
| elusive character. Morangs settlement
in this city was established to my entire
| satisfaction by documentary evidence
| alone. Such being the case | advised the
settlement of this suit which was done.
| The account sued for with interest and
costs amounted to $307.45. Settlement was
| effected on payment to the City of Gar
| diner Of $256.51 which amount was con-
*idered by His Honor the Mayor and
| myself to be a very advantageous settle
ment of said action. No further iabil
| ity on the part of the city was incurred
| by the settlement of this case. Mrs. Mo-
| rang is dead and there are no children
| deriving settlements in this city through
said settlement.
| Permit me to suggest at this time that
| | believe it should be the policy of the
POOR department. in conjunction with the
city solicitor, to investigate the liability
| Of the city in cases of this kind at the
me the actions are begun. If the liza
| ! 'lity of the city is established settle
ment should be effected as soon as is con-
| sistent with the best business interests
Of the city. 1t is not consistent with bus
| mess principles, nor is it to the advantage
OF our city, that actions to which there
| Is no defence should remain on the dock
cts of our courts for years accommodating
| costs which the city is bound to pay in
| the end
The case of Josiah A. Norton VS.. the
City of Augusta was entered and tried
at the October term of the Supreme Jul
dicial Court for 1900 1t was an action to
recover a balance on account of 1920, with
interest amounting to $3i, for crushed
stone delivered on Western Avenue in
| verdict in this case for the plaintiff
filed a motion for new trial on the
grounds that the verdict was contrary
| to the law and the evidence. AS the
amount involved in this case not
large and the costs of carrying the same
| forward would be quite heavy, it was not
deemed advisable to prosecute the motion
| and the verdict and costs were paid by
an order drawn by His Honor, Mayor
Titcomb.
During the past municipal year the
following new cases have arisen against
| the city:
| Hattie B. Norton VS.. City of Augusta,
| entered at the March term of the Supreme
| judicial Court Kennebec County.
Inhabitants of Fairfield VS.. City of Au-
gusta entered at the September term of
the Supreme Judicial Court, Somerset
| County.
Ella G.. Turner VS.. City of Augusta en-
| tered at the October term of the Supreme
Judicial Court. kennebec County.
| The case of Hattie b. Norton VS.. City of
Augusta was complaint against said
! city for damages to her house and lot oc-
| caSiOned by the changing of the grade of
| Sewall street. Before action was begun
| this claim was presented to the munich
| pal officers of the city and was referred
| by them to the city solicitor In my last
| annual report for the year ending March
| first, 1901, | reported that in my judg-
| ment the city had sound and legal de-
/
| at the March term of the Supreme Court
of this year and resulted in a verdict for
| the defendant municipality.
| The case of the Inhabitants of Fairfield
| VS.. the City Of Augusta is an action to
| recover for pauper supplies furnished to
| one Frank Lapoint. The account sued
! is for burial expenses and necessaries
| furnished during his last sickness. The
| question a issue is the pauper settlement
| of the said Frank Lapoint. AS at pres
| ent advised. it is my judgment that the
| city has a good defence to this action.
The case of Ella G. Turner VS.. tine City
| of Augusta is an action against the city
| for personal injuries sustained by the
plaintiff. as she says. through a defective
condition of the sidewalk on the west side
of Water street Immediately i'm front of
the store of Buzzcl and Weston. This
case was tried at the October term of
the Supreme Judicial Court and resulted
in verdict for the plaintiff for the sum
of $69l 81 The plaintiff sustained very Sc
we're injuries consisting of a break Of the
bones of the forearm and a disiocation
of the wrist The verdict WAS surpris-
ingly small and if the same should stand
| the liability of the city in this case will
be most reasonable. The real question in
this case. however was the alleged de-
feet 1T consisted of depression in the
| of the city solicitor that the depression
was not of such character as to consti-
tute a legal defect. After verdict for the
plaintiff in this cage ! filed motion for
a new trial on the grounds that the YER
dict was contrary to the law and the
| evidence The case was carried forward
| and was argued by me before the fun
| bench at the December term of the law
| court for 1901. | have yet no intma-
ton as to what the outcome of this case
! may be- | feel, however. that the YER
dict rendered by the jury was based upon
sympathy so common in damage cases Of
, this kind. 1t is my judgment that the
verdict cannot stand in law.
During the past year | have had coca
sion to bring two suits in behalf of the
, city, enc against the town of Crawford
. and one against the town Of WiscasSet
The suit against the inhabitants of
:, Crawford was an action tn recover for
nauper supplies furnished to one Rose
Dnke during the months of March AMI
APRIL. 1899 The amount sued for was
, sa13S This action was settled by the
DEFENDANT town shortly after the same
was begun
The suit against the inhabitants of Wis
casset was an action TO recover for sup
| niles furnished to the family of one Will
liam Coffin. The amount sued for was
Sis7SS The action was rcturnabe at the
November term of the Superior Court of
| Kennebec County. The seieGtmen of the
| defendant town were at first disposed
10 contest this case but on the day that
the writ was returnabie the case was set
tied BY said town on payment of the full
amount sued for with costs amounting in
ali to SI9f.5s. This case necessitated much
careful and painstaking work on the pa1t
of the oversecr of the poor and myself.
owing to the mental pecularities of Mr..