Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-03-17
FROM LAW COURT.
Three Reseripts Handed Down by Full
Bench.

handed down by the law court:
| Waldo, SIS: Inhabitants of Knox VS..
Inhabitants of Montville. Rescript
| Peabody, J.
| This action was brought to recover
for pauper supplies furnished to the
plaintiff town to one James A. Bailey.
who. it is claimed. had acquired n paul
per settlement in the defendant town.
/ The verdict was for the plaintiff, and
t the case came to the law court on ex-
4, ceptions of the defendant to the ruling
of the presiding justice excluding uues-
tions asked by the defendants counsel
on cross-examination of witness
called by the plaintiff, as to declara-
tions of the pauper made while board
ing in the defendant town. Also to the
ruling of the justice limiting the testi-
mOny OF witnesses to the declarations
of the pauper accompanying the act of
coming to or going from the defendant
town. or to the knowledge of the wit
nesses of the paupers purpose for dec
laration when he came there, as a part
of the act.
The controversy is simply whether
the pauper had abandoned his home in
Bangor and Intentionally begun to re-
which date he came there from Bangor
where he had stored his goods, and
boarded until the spring of 1881, when
he moved his household goods from
Bangor and commenced keeping house.
ana continued To reside in M0ntvilla
until the fall of 1855. If the home of
the pauper in the defendant town COM
mcnced in the spring of 1881 and ended
int hn f,,1
less than five years.
u The declarations to which the ex-
Guided questions related We're maG.,
I While the pauper was boarding i'm that
town. disconnected with any acts
which would themselves be evidence.
me case of Barring VS.. Calais, IL Me.
49,, is claimed as authority supporting
the adnlssability of such declarations.
Il mat case simply decided in general
that the declarations of the pauper are
competent evidence of his intention,
ana that it is not essential that the
tdeclarant should be dead or that his
DECLARATIONS should be against his in
lefeSt, but only that they should be
made under such circumstances as to
be parts of the res gestae. The true
principle upon which such evidence is
admissible is that the statement testi-
he'd to is verbal act illustrating. ex-
planning, or Interpreting other parts of
the transactions; that the declaration is
lcontemporaneOuS with the principal
fact. and so far explains or character
| ICES it rs to be in Il just sense a part
OF it and essential to the complete I'M
lderstanding of it.
The home which a person must have
| IN Il town for five successive wears "a
acquire pauper settlement therein. is
equivalent to Il domicile, which de-
Ponds upon residence and intention.
This intention can only be shown bv
his acts and words, and the mere ex-
preston of intent disconnected with
any relevant circumstances would be
too remote to be admissible i'm eyi-
| dence
| The pauper's intention is a question
OF fact to which he could himself tes-
tl1y His declarations could be received
IN evidence. but only if accompanying
Iacts which they explain, so as to be
regarded as part of acts from which
ms intention may be referred.
The rule of limitation and the admis-
sion OF the declarations adopted by the
presiding justice is based upon tn,
distinction between original and hear
say evidence 5,
| Exceptions overruled. II
-- putty, h
Knox IS. Vena T. Whitney. .ipt No I
VS. Katherine j. Johnson J
opinion. IN oor;tv emit
| Peabody, ]. This caseded instrument,
FOR relief against Il =, purporting to be
| alleged to be fraudlLe defendant certain r
| conveying |
tiff claims titIfo the law court for de- q
| IL Is rcpor' :
cision lifts title to the real estate
The pla is by warranty deed from AL ,
| in uuesneson, dated May II. 1893, and re-
mira. in the Knox county registry. of .
| co.'s whose title was derived as AN heir | .
I6'Wiliam jameson who died at Friend
Ehip. in the county of Knox, May %, 1880.
and by deeds from the widow
and other heirs of the intestate. which
are duly recorded in said registry. l.
The plaintiff alleges in the bill of COM {
plant that she is seized in fee of the Il
PENDANT on the fourth day of November.
A. d. 1895. caused to he placed upon the
records of the Knox county registry OF
deeds Il certain instrument purpOrting to
be a deed of warranty. lated October H.
1850, from William Jameson, above nam
ed, to the defendant of certain real cS-
tate conveyed to the plaintiff by Amira
Jameson; that until the record OF this
instrument she had no notice Of the claim
under the pretended deed; and that it
was not the deed of William Jameson
and Mary A jameson. or either OF them,
but is Il fraud against her and a cloud
upon the title to so much of her real es-
tate as is described in the bill. And she
asks that the defendant be required to
answer an oath to the bill. that the pre-
tended deed be declared null and void.
and that such further orders and DEGREES
he made as the nature OF the case may
require.
The de PENDANT in her answer made an
OATH denies that the instrument recorded
was in fraud OF the plaintiff or IL cloud |
upon the title of any part OF her loal eS-
tate. and says that she has openly occu- |
plea. improved and claimed the premises
described in said instrument without MN |
,lerancc or objection since October. 1892
until the claim of the plaintiff within !
| tn. year last passed. and that the plain !,
| tiff has no title thereto and has not by
| the bill of complaint stated such a case |
| AS entities her in court OF equity To
relief and insists upon this as cause oil
demurrer.
| A bin in equity for such relief as is
| tanned unless the plaintiff is in actual
| possession of the premises and mas pos
| ca. sion g, Ilaoad i'm the bill. The allegation