Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-12-12

Rescript, Spear. ].
Writ of certiOrari to quash the pro-
cee1ings of the county commissioners
of Somerset county in laying out a win
ter road
In this case a hearing was had upon
the petition, before a justice of the SUI
preme judicial court, asking for a writ
of certiorari to quash the proceedings
OF the county commissioners in laying
out winter road, upon the ground that
the commissioners had no Jurisdiction
over the case, as it was presented to
them, one of the members of the board
being related to several Of the petition
ers within the degree of second cousin.
The writ was granted and the case
then reported to the law court for it's
decision. The record of the proceed
ings of the county commissioners was
sent up, as the writ required, but in the
records neither the error of which the
petitioner complained nor any other.
error of which the petitioner complains
ed nor any other error appeared. An
inspection of the record sent up showed
complete jurisdiction on the part of the
court of commissioners and that their
proceedings were without error or de-
feet; held, that the record was conclu-
eive upon ali matters contained in it,
and that no evidence de hOrs the record
could be admitted upon the writ.
1t further appeared. from an irspec-
ton Of the record sent up, that the pc
titioner. in. her petition. did not allege
that she did not know, at the inception
of the proceedings, of the relationship
of which she complained, nor that if she
did not SO know, she, could not by the
exercise of reasonable diligence have
ascertained the fact; held that the pc
titioner should have alleged, in her Pc
tition. that she did not have such
knowledge and that, by the exercise Of
reasonable diligence. she could not
have ascertained it.
Writ quashed with costs.
Received Dec. 10, 1902.
Lincoln county-Nathaniel J. Hanna
VS.. George w. Singer. Strout, j.
Demurrer to declaration for libel
The first count in the writ contains no
words of inducement, colIoquium or in
ucndo connecting the plaintiff with the
alleged libel. The article itself, so far
as libeilOus matter is concerned fails to
identify the plaintiff as the person in
tended. This count is clearly defective
If in the remaining two couts it was
intended to charge the matter publish
ed to be libellous of the plaintiff in his
office of q deputy sheriff, they are
fatally defective. as neither contains
an allegat ion that he was a deputy
sheriff at the date of publication nor
that the language referred to him i'm
his official capacity. a libel upon him
as Il private individual is all that these
counts cover.
In tn second count the language does
not authorize the inuendO that the
plaintiff was meant. The remainder of
the article. even if applied to the plain
tiff, though inelegant, cannot be re-
garded as libeilOus.
The third count contains neither in
ducement. colloquium or inuendo. The
article unexplained refers to n. G.
Hanna. while the plaintiffs name is
Nathaniel J. Hanna. There is no
averment that the plaintiff was intend
ed to be referred TO.
Both of these counts are defective.
Exceptions sustained.
Demurrer sustained.
Received Dec. IL, 1902.