Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-08-03
Three REScRIPTS.
Csess Involving Piseataquis, Washing
ton and Penohscot Parties.

Fremont C. Horne VS.. Maine Water
Co. Piscataquis county.
Rescript. Emery. J.
This was an action to recover extra
pay for working over time and Sun.
days by the plaintiff. who had been
hired by the defendant at fixed sum
per month. The plaintiff claimed that
II was agreed he should be paid extra
for such work. The defendant claimed
that such work was included in the
monthly wages.
At the argument of this motion to
set aside the verdict as against evil
dence, the defendant did not dispute
that Is the plaintiffs testimony was
true, 1t would sustain the verdict. II
was strenuously urged, however, that
the evidence Of the witnesses for the
defendant and various circumstances
showed that testimony to be untrue.
Especial stress is laid upon the high
character Of the witnesses called by the
defendant and upon the great improb-
ability and even imDossibility Of their
falsifying or being mistaken even. But
the credence to be given any witness,
whatever his character or standing in
the community, Is peculiarly a matter
for the jury which sees and hears him,
even more than the differences to be
drawn from circumstances. However
good an opinion we may have OF any
witness. we cannot hold that propo-
sition Of fact is established by his tes-
timony alone against the testimony OF
other witnesses and the verdict of the
jury.
Several circumstances are urged
against the plaintiff. One is that he
did not begin suit for some time after
lie had finished his employment and
had been paid the full monthly wages.
There is no rule of law or business that
obliges one to begin suit at once after
his claim is denied. The jury was not
bound to consider that delay as an an
swer to the claim. Another is that the
plaintiff signed without protest the
regular pay-rOlls from date to date
which showed him to be paid i'm full to
each date. The plaintiff testified, how
ever. that 1t was agreed that the claim
for the extra work should be delayed
end adjusted as a whole at the end OF
lis employment. Written receipts even
when expressly stated to be in full are
not conclusive evidence of payment in
full. The pay-rolls were not unex-
plainnbly inconsistent with the plain.
tins testimony. Another circumstance
relied upon is that the jury awarded
compensation for the Sunday work,
but did not for the hours of over work
on week days. The argument is that
the verdict Is inconsistent since If the
plaintiff was entitlei to recover any
thing. he was for his whole claim. It
appeared, however, that on many days
the plaintiff worked less than 10 hours
a day. and the aggregate of the hours
under time nearly equaled, il it did not
exceed, that of the hours over time. It
may have seemed equitable to the jury
that the one should offset the other.
However much the plaintiff might COM
plain OF this, the defendant should not.
Again we find the plaintiff corrobo-
rated on some material points by two
other witnesses. Our conclusion upon
the whole evidence Is that we are not
warranted in saying That the jury WIS
undoubtedly wrong.
Motion ovcrruled.
Judgment on the VeIdiCt.
Received, Aug. 2, !aO4.