Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-12-20
Piseataquis and Sasadahoc Cases
Come, Today.

The session of the law term of the Su
preme judicial court WAS resumed,
Monday morning, at 10 o'clock. The
days proceedings varied little from
those of the preceding sessions of the
term and there We're few spectators
| present. Contrary to the general Gus
tom there were but few kennebec coun-
ty lawyers present at any time during
the day.
me cases submitted were many and
varied. The Penobscot county cases
were disposed Of as follows:
Barton VS.. Herrick, continued to
Bangor.
Carrigan, Admir-, VS.. Stillwell, con-
tinued.
| Cassidy VS.. Royal Exchange Assur-
ance, continued.
| Leard VS.. International Paper Co.,
argued orally.
State VS.. Canadian Pacific Railway,
argued.
| Thibbetts, Aplt. VS.. McEven, argued.
| White in Equity VS.. Babb, submit
ted on briefs.
Blood ct ais. in co. vs. Beal ct ais.
argued.
Goodwin VS.. Inhs. Of Charleston,
continued to June term at Bangor.
Knapp ct ais. VS.. Great Works Dam
Co, continued on motion by defendant.
| Mattawamkeag Log Driving Co. VS..
Dyson & IT., to be argued in writing.
| Mattawamkeag Log Driving Co. VS..
Byron. Andrew W., argued.
Mattawamkeag Log Driving Co. VS..
| Byron Geo. L., argued.
| Public Works Co. vs. Old Town, oral
ly argued.
| Weber VS.. Griffin continued.
| Wiley ct al. VS.. Holt. continued.
| Williams ct al. in eq. VS.. Dearborn ct
| ais, continued to Bangor.
| In the following cases there was no
appearance and they were dismissed
from the docket for want of prosecu-
ton
| State VS.. Croker
| State VS.. Costigan.
State VS.. Finnigan.
| state VS.. Patterson.
state VS.. Violet.
| State VS.. White.
| State VS.. Townsend.
State VS.. Jameson.
| State VS.. Foster.
| State VS.. Foster.
| State VS.. Newman.
| State VS.. Crafty.
| State VS.. Finnigan.
| State VS.. Thompson.
| State VS.. Berry. (Two cases)
State VS.. Bartlett.
| State VS.. Costlgan.
| state VS.. Crafty.
| State vs. Shaw ct. ais. The first case
before the court for ora! argument was
hiatt of Thomas Leard against the
| Great Northern Paper Co, Chas. ].
Dunn appeared for the plaintiff and P.
H. Gillin for the defendant. This case
was brought to the law term on motion
of the defendant who took exceptions to
the acceptance Of evidence in theflower
court. where judgment was in favor OF
the defendant. The accident upon
which the case is based occurred at the
Montague pulp mill, where the de-
PENDANT. while engaged in wheeling
pulp. was caught under falling pile
and severely injured.
The plaintiff in support OF the sus-
tanning Of the verdict claimed neglect
protecting the men in their employ,
etc, presenting nearly the entire testi-
mony OF the plaintiff at the previous
trial.
Decision was reserved.
The second case before the court was
that OF Melvin Tibbetts against John
McEven. The motion in this case was
by the plaintiff who appealed for new
A. 80 tvpcf ind
nv the lower court which gave judg-
ment in favor Of the plaintiff in the
sum OF $38 The plaintiff sued to re-
cover $17S which he claimed due as I'M
paid wages on a contract job IN hotel
I'm hte town Of Guilford. Mr.. Tibbetts
was employed by the defendant, as
boss on a contract lob erecting hotel
lin Guilford, and was to receive $5.5o
day. The amount Of wages came to
nearly $780, of which amount the plain
tiff claimed s17S still due. The lower
court gave Judgment in the sum OF s3s,
this the plaintiff claims to be ar unjust
finding. contrary to the evidence anu
the charge of the presiding justice
w. B. Pierce represented the plaintiff
and John F. Robinson the defendant.
l. Decision was reserved.
The case of F. A. Blood ct. ais. in Eq.
vs F.O. Beal, ct. ais. proved to be the
most interesting case OF the day. The
action was brought by F. A. Blood and
"a others residents of the city OF Ban
cor against F. o. Beal, mayor, praying
that he and the city treasurer De
restrained upon acting upon certain
orders, recently passed by the city
courtfl. The city council had passed
an order authorizing the purchase 81
two steel spans for the Bangor ana
Brewer bridge. This the plaintiff IN the
aseiclaims was passed illegally. mas
i, much as the vote was taken by yea
and nay. The plaintiff sets forth Is
, oasnst the rule of procedure ana
makes this claim the principle one IN
. thu motion for sustaining an Injunction
, | Lo,r;rg n the absence OF Justice Sew