Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-02-24
LAW COURT DECISIONS
landed Down in Androscoggin, cun,-
berland and kennebec Gases,

Bangor, Me-, Feb. ga rescript
from the Maine law court received
here, this afternoon, in the Andros-
coggin county case of Angus Amburg
VS. International Paper Co. grants a
new trial to the defendants.
In the Cumberland county case of
State of Maine VS.. William w. Damon,
| judgement is rendered for the State,
the plaintiffs exceptions being over
ruled.
| In the Kennebec case of Warren c.
Harlow VS.. John T.. Oxnard, motions
| for new trial are overruled.
The rescripts in full:
Androscoggin case: Angus Amburg
VS. International Paper Co. Rescript
| by Savage, j.
l. The masters duty to provide reas-
onably safe appliance and instrument
talities with which the servants are to
do their work is fully discharged if he
has furnished a sufficient supply if suit
able appliances, with competent men
to use them. and it was understood that
the servants themselves were to select
the particular occasion demanded.
. In such case, if by use or lapse
of time an appliance becoraes unfit for
use. the master has right to assume
that the servants will use the means
for renewal and repair which the mas
ter has placed at their hands, or that
other appliances will be selected in the
place of those which have become un-
fit, out of the supply furnished by the
master.
3. If the servant whose duty it is to
make the selection is negligent in so
doing. it is not the negligence of the
master but of a servant for which
the master is not responsible.
4. In this case there is no evidence to
support the contention that the rope in
question. the breaking of which caused
the plaintiffs injury, was actually fur
nished by the defendant for the specific
use to which it was put. But if it were
a fact that it had been so used by ser
wants before the time it broke, the
master would be no more responsible
for it's condition and use at the time of
the injury than if it had been so used
for the first time. 1t would simply be
a case where the foreman, who was II
fellow servant of the plaintiff, having
the right and being under the duty OF
selecting a suitable rope, selected one
lying on the floor, instead of a larger
and stronger one placed at his COM
mand by the defendant; and if there
was any negligence in it's selection and
use, it was not the negligence of the
defendant. but of the plaintiffs fellow
TTnnn 10 ayiInncp this rai leo
an insuperable bar to the plaintiff
right to recover.
Motion sustained. New trial grant
ed.
Cumberland case: State of Maine VS..
William D. Damon. RescIipt by Saw
age, ].
In an indictment for polygamy, it is
sufficient to show jurisdiction, to aver
that the crime was committed at some
town within the county, or that the Of
fender resided in the county at the
time of indictment, or that he was APP
pretended within the county,.
In sllchSa indictment, heSstatutory-
exception is sufficiently and properly
negatived, by the use of the following
language: THE said Rose Hoff Da-
mon (the lawful wife) mot having
been continuously absent for seven
years previous thereto and not known
to. MIN, the said William W.. Damon to
be living that time"
Exceptions overruled. Judgment for
the State.
Kennebec case: Warren G. Harlow
VS.. John It. OXnard. Rescript by Saw
age, j. mo opinion).9 y
A new trial will not be granted on
the ground of newly discovered evil
dence when it does not appear to the
court that the new testimony is of such
character, weight and value, consid-
cred with the evidence already in the
case, as renders it probable that on
new trial, with the additional evidence
the result would be changed; or that
injustice is likely to be done, if new
trial is refused.
The court is of opinion that the, APP
plication of this rule does not entitle
claimed that the defense was fabri-
Gated. The jury found that it was. The
court is not strongly impressed by the
merits of the defendants case as Of
fered. There are inherent weaknesses
In it as developed, which must have
impressed the jury. The weaknesses
are such that it is not thought prob
able that another trial will result diff
ferentiy from the former one, or that
justice requires q new trial.
Motion for n new trial OVerrlIled