Daily Kennebec journal., 1904-12-17
LAW COURT.
kennebec Cases Disposed
Of, Friday.
Knox and Lincoln County Cases
Scheduled for Today.
ONLY q Few of the Gases Are Argued
Orally.

The session Of the law court was re-
sumed, Friday morning, at $50 O'Clock
The proceedings Of the day followed the
| previous routine of court work, verylne
only with the nature Of the cases. The
Kennebec county cases were nrst
| brought to the attention OF the court
| and disposed Of as follows:
Augusta Water Dis. in Ed, VS.. Au-
eusta Water Co., continued.
Champion vs.. Marston, Admx., con-
| tinued.
Davis VS.. American Express Co., oral
ly argued.
Frost, Complt, VS.. Cuskley. continued.
Kennebec Steam Towage Co. sci. ia.
vs. Rich. continued.
Littlefield VS.. Perkins. argued orally.
Rancourt ct. al. VS.. Bushey ct. al. &
TT. Continued.
Richardson VS.. Taylor, argued in
writing.
State VS.. Gile. dismissed.
Bradbury Aplt. from decree of ]. of
p, continued to Portland.
Beedy VS.. Maine Central Railroad,
continued.
Beedy VS.. Maine Central Railroad,
continued.
Brown in Eq. VS.. Gerald ct al.
Charming in Eq. VS.. Jewell, dismissed.
Cleaves vs. Powell, continued.
Cosgrove VS.. Kennebec Light and
Heat Co., continued.
Haynes VS.. Waterville & Oakland
Street Railway, continued.
King VS.. Leavtt. continued.
Lombard, A. O., VS.. A. S. Burke, con-
tinued.
Lombard, Mary E., VS.. Burke, A. S.,
continued.
Lovejoy ct. al. VS.. Penney, motion
overruled for want of prosecution.
Lovejoy et al. VS.. Penney, nation
overruled for want of prosecution.
Noyes ct ais. Aplts. VS.. City of Wa
terville, continued.
Parrott Co. VS.. Davis & IT., Dis
missed.
Rich VS.. Haynes, Admir-, continued.
Ruby VS.. Getchell, deposition dis
charged, case remanded to nisi pruis
term to allow the plaintiff to procure
evidence in support Of claims.
Rush VS.. Buckley ct. ais, previously
argued.
Rush vs. Fairfield ct. ais, previously
argued.
Thompson d. b. n. VS.. Augusta, Win
throp & Gardiner Ry., continued.
Wood VS.. Maine Central r. R., con-
tinued to Portland.
In the cases following, the motions
were overruled for want Of prosecu-
ton. judgment for the State.
State VS.. Barney.
State VS.. Barney, Aplt.
State VS.. Vigue.
State VS.. Noel.
State VS.. Thibodeau.
State VS.. Vigue, Aplt. e cases).
State VS.. Noel Aplt.
State VS.. Thibodeau.
| The first case for oral argument was
that of Chas. H. Davis against the
American Express Co. The case was
argued to considerable length by Shell
don & SawtelIe for the plaintiff and
Cornish & Bassett for the Defendant
| Decision was reserved.
| The second case was that Of Jos. H.
Littlefield and Florence H. Perkins Of
Rome. The case was brought to the at
teEtion of the court on motion of ap-
peal from the decision of the lower
court. which gave judgment for the
plaintiff. Brown & Brown appeared as
counsel for the plaintiff and Attorney
F. w. Clair for the defendant.
| The above case occupied the time at
the morning session. Upon resuming
in the afternoon the well-known case
of Joseph c. Brown of Benton in equity
against Amos S. Gerald and others of
Fairfield. S. S. Brown appeared for the
plaintiff and Heath & Andrews for the
defendant.
! The plaintiff appeared as the moving
party and prayed for a revision Of the
decision of the lower court. The de-
fendant is interested in a telephone line
and wished to construct a telephone
line across certain farms in the town of
Benton. The approval Of the owners of
some of the land could not be secured
and defendants exercised the right of
eminent domain. The court upheld the
defendants in their course of action.
The court reserved decision.
The case was exceptionally interest
ing owing to the intricate law points
involved and was thrashed out in detail
by the contending counsel.
| IHc SaSe VI "A. .. ftuDy against A. T..
Getchell of Oakland, was scheduled for
oral argument. G. w. Field represented
the plaintiff and the law firm of Brown
& Brown for the defendant. Decision in
the lower court was submitted in IA
vor of the defendant. Attorney Field
showed relationship existing between
one Of the members of the panel and
the defendant has asked that the YER
dict be set aside. The argument was
postponed owing to the mandate of the
court: Report discharged. case re-
manded to nisi prius term to allow
plaintiff to introduce evidence in sup
port of his claim that the relationship
Iof juror was known to defendant be-
fore the trial"
The cases of Knox county and Lin
coin will be heard. today. and will be
considered in the following order:
/ Brown VS.. Brown.
Clark VS.. Rockland T. & c. Street
Railway.
| Davis VS.. Poland.
Doe in Eq. VS.. Littlefield, Admr.
Miller, j. of p, VS.. Kelsey ct. al.
Poland ct. al. VS.. Thomaston Face &
Ornamental Brick Co.