Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1903-12-11

seph E. Moore of Thomaston, a former
member of the State Senate: Hon. Mer-
rift A. Johnson of Rockland, a former
county attorney of Knox county; Hon
Joseph f. Hall of Bangor, who was at
one time a candidate for Congress in
the fourth district and former private
secretary to the late Congressman Bou.
telle; Hon. John A. Morrill, of Auburn,
who has charge Of the present revision
of the Revised Statutes; and Hon. Lee
Roy Haley of Biddeford ~
Lincoln and PenObscot county cases
will lie considered, today.
The entries from Lincoln are as fol-
lows: Crummett VS.. Littlefeld, ad-
ministrator; Fleming, executriX VS..
Courtenay, administrator; Melcher
Company VS.. Lynch ct ais: State VS..
Kaufman: State VS.. Twin Village Wa
ter Company; Twin Village Water Com
pany VS.. Damariscotta Gaslight Com
pany; State VS.. Creighton.
The Penobscot entries are as follows:
Appleton & Company VS.. Preble; Bry-
ant VS.. Grady; Cookson, petition, VS..
Municipal officers of Bangor; Handy
VS.. Rice ct ais: Kidson VS.. Bangor;
Pierce, assignee VS.. Banton ct ais;
Plourd vs. Jarvis; Rollins VS.. Black
den; Sevey vs. Laughlin; White VS..
Farnhom trustee; Young VS.. Qulmpy;
Carrigan, administrator VS.. StilWell
Green VS.. BuZZell ct ais; Handy VS..
Rice ct ais, Leonard VS.. Allen Clothing
Company; Orr VS.. Old Town: Philips
ct ais VS.. Laughlin; Puffer VS.. De
Busha; State VS.. Buckley: State VS.
Durgin, appellant: State VS.. Mcclure;
State VS.. ODonohue: State VS.. Town
send, appellant; Taunton Wool Stock
COMPANY VS.. Walter Scott Company;
Toothaker VS.. Rogers, appellant; Hasei-
tine VS.. Shepherd ct ais.
A writ of protection was issued by
Chief Justice Wiswell, Thursday, pro-
tecting William II. Cole, who was
brought into the State for trial on re-
o,,isition proceedings from Massachus-
etts. charged with the enbeZzlement OF
moneys belonging to the city OF Saco'
while a, member of the board of over
seers of the poor of that city. rms
writ will protect Mr.. Cole from the
service of civil actions while the crlm-'
inal part is pending. Coles interests
were looked after by Leroy Haley,
ESQ, of Biddeford.
The following rescripts were handed
down, Thursday:
Waldo county-Waterville Trust Com
pany VS., Charles e. Libby. Rescript
by Wiswell, c. J.
This was an action upon a joint and
several promissory note signed by the
defendant and several other makers.
The note was dated Jan. Is. 1900, was
for 1000 payable to the plaintiff or it's
order, and became due Feb. rs, 1910.
The defense was that there was no
consideration for the note and that 1t
was given as an accommodation Tor
the payee, the plaintiff. The case was
submitted to the law court upon re-
port of the evidence, taken by the pre-
siding justice in the court below, and
the parties stipulated that the law
court be invested with jury powers and
to draw all legal differences that a jury
might, and was to render such decision
as the legal rights Of the parties might
require.
The history of the transactions of
which this note was the outcome is
lengthy and full of detail and, being
stated in the opinion, need not be re-
peated here.
The court are of the opinion that
there was a full consideration for the
note; that it was not given as an ac-
commodation to the payee; and that
an action thereon can be maintained
against one of the joint and several
promissors.
Judgment for plaintiff for $4,000 and
interest from Feb. Is, 1900.
Waldo Countv-Waterville Trust Compa-
ny VS.. Charles E. Libby. Rescript by