Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-12-14

principal witness is deceased. thus i
would De impossible to reproduce tn
| testimony and Attorney Henry W
Cakes moved that the law court rule t
sustain the verdict of the lower court
Numerous other cases were cite'
where the records of testimony wer
lost, the discussion lasting nearly tn
entire morning. The general tend Of tn
arguments by the attorneys who hat
been favored with judgment by tn
lower courts was that the decision o
the lower courts was just and in ac
cordance with the testimony present
ed. Further than this the tes.imon!
could not be produced.
On the other hand the opposing coun
sci claimed that there was PRACTICAL,
the granting Of new trial. Severa
cases were cited from the records Of
South Carolina and Pennsylvania
courts where death had interrupted the
proceedings and the judges had invari-
ably ordered new trials. Thus the at
torneys quoted that the finding Of one
judge would be the finding of another
After due consideration Chief Justice
Wiswell stated that the court would re-
serve decision in the matter. request
ing each and every attorney in any way
interested to ill a brief stating Their
exact position and opinion iT regard to
the situation. The decision was re-
served until such time as the court
could give mature consideration to the
subject. There are cases affected in
An p;cootans,;c ana COnor.
set, all of which will be continued to
the Bangor term OF the court, the sec
ond Tuesday in June.
At the conclusion of the above dis
cussion. which had proved extremely
interesting from a law point of view.
the case of the State against Frank w.
Sanford of Shilo, was brought to the
attention Of the court. Henry w. Cakes.
attorney for the defence, stated the
grounds by which he moved new
trial, practically the same as the GUS
tomary law statues. He claimed prin-
cipally that the verdict was unjust. in
asmuch as it was not in accordance
with the evidence.
w. B. Shelton. county attorney of
AndroscOggin county, appeared for the
State and in stating the grounds Of re-
buttal denied the facts as set forth by
the defendant counsel.
The case has been one OF considerable
interest, especially at the recent hear
ing. Frank w. Sanford of Shilo, had
became guardian of a boy six years
of age and the State set forth that as
a punishment he had compelled the
boy to undergo a period of fast. Of y
hours dura ton and this in the sight of
food and water. thereby being guilty
of extreme cruelty.
K On the other hand the defence set
forth the claim that the boy realized
fully the worth Of true religious en-
thusiasm and had performed this fast
on his own responsibility and not as
a compulsory action.
Decision was reserved.
The next case. that Of Frank A. Ben
nett VS.. Daniel F. Sullivan ct ais. was
the second ready for oral argument.
Georg. c. Wing acted as attorney for
plaintiff, and the law firm of Newall &
Shelton appeared for the defendant.
The plaintiff rented the middle tene-
ment in a three-tenement dwelling at
No. IS Pleasant street, Auburn, to the
defendant. On Oct. Is, 1903. after hav-
ing occupied the tenement for nearly
three years the plaintiff went upon a
back platform Of the tenement to feed
his hens. He placed his hand on the
rail of the platform and leaning over.
threw the grain into the yard below. As
ne did so the rail broke and he fall
CONTINUED on page 81