Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-01-10
LAW COURT DECISIONS.
Four Rescripts Of Great Interest to Parties In
State Of Maine.

Water Power Co. of Aid Town VS.. the
Old Town Electric CO., has been nand-
ed down by Judge Wiwell, the decision
being received by Clerk of Courts
Sweet on Wednesday. The suit was on
the original lease on the Milford side
of the river which expired, Dec. 1, 1900,
and the question decided does not effect
the bill in equity of the Old Town Elec-
trio Co. VS.. the Bodwell Water Power
Co. filed last summer, an adjustment
| of which has been agreed upon by the
two companies. The rescript follows:
K. S. G. 81, Sec. l. which provides
| that an action of forcible entry and de-
| tainer may be maintained against a
| tenant holding under a written lease,
at the expiration Of forfeiture OF the
term, without notice, if commenced
within seven days from the expiration
Or forfeiture of the term" is applicable
where such tenant is a quasi public
corporation, engaged in the business of
supplying electricity, for lighting and
other purposes, to municipalities and
their inhabitants.
The lease, in this case, from the land
lord to the tenant, contains this pro-
vision: AT the termination of this
lease the said Bodwell Water Power
Co. the landIord) shall at it's option
either buy or allow to be removed the
property of said Old Town Electric
Co."
Held: That the only purpose or eff
feet of this provision was to give the
tenant right to remove it's property
after the term provided in the lease
had expired, unless the landlord eXer-
cised its option to purchase, a right
which without this clause, the tenant
would not have had. That 1t did not
postpone the expiration of the term be-
yond the time provided in the lease, nor
prevent the maintenance of this action
of forcible entry and detainer, com
menced within seven days from the eX-
piration of such term.
Judgment for plaintiff.
A rescript, drawn by Justice Strout
in the case Of The State VS.. Harry
Brown, was received, Wednesday. Ii
is as follows:
Defendant was indicted for throwing
into Crooked river quantities OF saw
dust, shavings, bark. and other mill
waste, in violation of Chap. 331. of the
Private Laws of 1901. That act pro-
hibits the throwing of such waste ''in-
to any of the streams, rivers or brooks
lying wholly or in part, in the towns of
Naples, Casco and Raymond"
Crooked river runs through the towns
of Albany, Waterford, Harrison and
Naples. The Indictment charges thai
defendant threw such waste into
Crooked river in the town Of Water
ford.
The case is here on exceptions to the
overruling of a demurrer to the indict-
ment. The mischief against which the
statute was intended to guard was the
pollution or obstruction of waters flow
ing through the towns of Naples, Casco
and RAYMOND. Such mischief is eff
| fectually accomplished if the waste is
thrown into waters flowing through
said towns, or either of them, at any
any point before the water reaches
them. The entry must therefore be.
Exceptions overruled judgment for
the State.
Two other rescripts were received
Tuesday. One of them, drawn by
Chief Justice Wiswell, was in the case
of Charles A. Coud VS.. the city of Port
land 1t is as follows:
In an action to recover compensation
for the plaintiffs services as harboI
master of Portland Harbor, Held: b.
That this position is a public office
created by legislative enactment and
by an ordinance of the city council OF
the city of Portland, passed in accord
ance with the act of the Legislature;
and that. during the plaintiffs incum-
bency of this position, he was public
officer, not q mere agent or employee
of the city.
That as such public officer the plain
| tiff had no contractual relations WIFI
the city of Portland, and can not recov-
er upon an implied promise to pay
/ what his services were reasonapi!
worth, because his services were no.
rendered to, nor for the benefit OF th'
city. He was entitled to such compen-
sation as might be established by tn
city council and none other.
That the plaintiff has failed to show
that any salary was established by th'
city council of Portland for the office o
| harbor-master for the period that III
was an incumbent of this office.
Upon the contrary, the case snow!
that during the year prior to the PLAIN
tin's election to the office, the cit.
council passed an order to the eftec
that after the expiration OF that mu
nicipal year. there should be no sepa
o rate salary attached to this office, pu
that the compensation for the service
of this officer should be included IN Tn
amount paid for the maintenance Oh
= firc-boat: that during all the time ina
the plaintiff held the office OF harpo
master he was also captain OF the nre
boat and received compensation FOR nj
i, services in the latter capacity, ana Una
when he accepted the position Oh cap
,. tain of the fire-boat and the Once
harbor master. he was aware OF IN
I. order passed by the. city council TO IN
- effect that there should be no salar
for the latter office and that his com
pensation as captain of the hre-poa
was to include his salary as marco
master.
The plaintiff consequently is not en-
titled to recover upon any ground.
/ Judgment for defendant.
The fourth rescript. which was ans
drawn by the chief justice. was IN
LIQUOR case. that of The State VS.. Harr
Brady. 1t is as follows:
That portion of r. s.. c. ~. sec. o
n. -. Sole