Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-03-05
LAW COURT DECISIONS.

Three rescripts. drawn by Justice
Strout have been handed down from the
Maine law court. One, from Cumberland
county, in the case of Lewis H. Rose VS.
Myron E. Gutterson ct AL, was as fol-
lows:
This case came up on motion to set the
verdict aside as against evidence The
testimony was conflicting. 1t was within
the province of the jury to determine OH
which side the preponderance hay. The
contract and all the negotiations were
oral, and the PROOF rested In mere recoI-
lection on both sides The rights of the
parties depended upon the accuracy oe
the recollection of the witnesses. Bear
ing upon that, the volume of business
transactions by the parties might have
weight. The jury passed upon all these
questions, and found the plaintiffs state.
ment to be the correct account of the
transaction. We cannot say that such
finding is so manifestly wrong as to re-
quire us to disturb the verdict
The other two cases are from Andres
coggin county. The rescripts are as fol-
lows:
John W. Colder vs. David W. Varville.
Defendant had piled quantity of wood
near the travelled part of the highway.
Plaintiff claims that he was driving in
the way, and had approached within a
few feet of the wood a part of it fell and
thrown from his carriage and injured.
Whether the wood fell and caused the
fright, was the mooted question. The
jury found for the defendant. The evil
dence was contradictory. But the jury
saw and heard the witnesses, and it was
peculiarly within its province to deter
mine what the fact was. 1t is very pos
sible that the court might have arrived
at different conclusion-but there was
evidence which. if believed would Justify
the verdict. We cannot say that the YER
dict is so Enthusiastically wrong as to re-
quire US to set ii aside.
Motion overruled.
Exceptions sustained.
Irene A. Wade ct al. VS.. J. III. Foss.
Suit upon an unstamped promissory
note.
The statute of the United States re-
quired a stamp upon such notes. and pro
vided that. unless stamped, they shall
not be admissible in evidence in any
court.
Held. that this provision applied only
to courts of the United States and had
no application to state courts. Rules OF
evidence in the latter courts are governed
by the laws of the State, and not subject
to control by Congress. An unstamped
note cannot, for that cause, be excluded
as evidence on a trial in a court of this
State. 1t was excluded in the court be-
low, and exception taken.
Exceptions sustained.
Hattie Eveleth VS.. Charles H. Sawyer.
Rescript by Powers, j.
Where the law implies a promise, the
consideration for which moves from sew
eral persons Jointly, the promise so i'm
piled will be joint as to the Promises.
The same contract cannot be so framed
as to give the Promises the right to sue
upon it both jointly and separately. They
must be entitled under it either Jointly
only or separately only, and must sue
accordingly. 1t cannot be treated as Joint
or several at the option of the Promises
but must be understood 10 be as to them
Joint, when the interest is joint. and sew
eral when the interest is several.
The law will not imply contract which
the parties themselves cannot make.
Plaintiff nonSUit