Daily Kennebec journal., 1904-12-16

quantity of tea on a writ in favor n
Nyer Gallert against NJ. NJ. and f. +,
Davis. The creditor had received :
mortgage of future acquired chattel,
from the plaintiff. attached and helf
The same against the mOrtgagee. who
prior to the time of attachment. had
taken and retained possession. The
lower court found and decided as q
| matter cf law that upon the facts an.
pearlng the plaintiff was not entitled
to recover and found judgment in ia.
vor of the defendant.
Decision was reserved.
This completed the docket of Han.
COCK county with the exception of the
case of Branan against Dodge, which
was postponed until the conclusion OF
the present term.
The lawyers interested in cases 5S1
5Sf and 553 We're notified to be present
at o'clock and were duly present.
The first case to come before the
court was that of b. F. Parrott vs.
Charles w. Davis & Tr. Williamson &
Bu"!eigh appeared for the plaintiff and
r.. M. Thompson for the trustee. The
case was brought up on report and by
agreement Of counsel was to be argued
before the court. Attorney Williamson
moved for Judgment against the trus-
tee and Attorney Thompson appeared
for the defence
The real defendant has been left out
OF the proceedings as he is out of the
jurisdiction of the court and the court.
through Chief Justice Wiswell, ruled
that rs the court had secured no
charge against the real defendant, C.
+. Davis. it had no jurisdiction in the
matter against the trustee, one Cyrus
Stllson and the entry was dismissed
from the docket. Action will be taken
against the defendant Immediately and
tn" case will be heard from latter.
The next case was that of Charles
Rush against Herbert w. Fairfield
Judge A. G. Andrews and Henry M.
Breen, and was taken jointly with the
case of Chas. Rush against Judge A. G.
Andrews, Henry NJ. Breen and Daniel
Buckley. Williamson & Burleigh ap-
peared in behalf OF the plaintiff and E.
NJ. Thompson for the defendant. The
action for which the case was brought
happened on the afternoon of Jan. 6,
1874, when the plaintiff was engaged as
a driver of a public carriage in the en-
ploy of Fred Lawrence, was arrested
and confined in Jail for violating a city
ordinance. After staying in the city
jail for about four hours, he was re-
leased on bail. GN
MIR. Williamson in presenting the
case to the court reviewed the Incidents
of the occurrence and showing the
ground on which the action was
brought. He claimed, by reference to
several instances in previous cases in
other states that the ordinance was un-
lawful, and that by the false imprison-
mcnt of the plaintiff. the several par
ties in the suit had made. themselves
liable. Attorney Williamson further ar
gued that the arrest and commitment
was merely an act of malicious prose-
cution against the owner of the vehicle
which Mr.. Rush was driving, more
than at the plaintiff, claiming that
even this would not justify any of the
defendant parties in the action.
In reply Attorney Thompson claimed
the officer and Judge Andrews were
not liable for the arrest or commitment
of the plaintiff, as they were in the reg
ular discharge of their duty and were
in no way guilty of maltreatment or
malicious intentions toward the plain
tiff. Attorney Thompson cited numer
Gus instances to sustain his remarks
by law as showd by the statutes in the
several states. At the conclusion of the
above case court adjourned until this
morning at $50 o'clock.
The Kennebec county cases will be