Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1905-09-23
Cumberland County RescriPts.

Daniel S. GRAHAM VS.. Fabius M. Ray
ct ais.
This is a petition 20 the law court TO
allow and hear exceptions to the action
of the presiding justice refusing TO en-
| terrain a petition against several
parties and alleging several grievances
] the presiding justice having refused to
| take Jurisdiction and TO allow eXcep-
| tions.
We may concede that the petitioner
strongly feels that he hos been injured
in his personal and property rights i'll
various ways by the Parties named.
| He invokes the provisions of section 10
of the Bill of Rights, trat every per-
| son for an injury done him in his per
son, reputation, property or imnuAi-
| ties, shall have remedy by due cours"
| of law" He recites.Wil he claims to
| be injuries done him, and insists that
under the section Quotou, the cour-
should redress them. If he has been
| injured. If what he mas set out as in
jUries are legal injuries, he is entitled
| to remedy; but it dos not follow that
he is entitled to remedy eli the petition
ne offered. The section he cites says
that the remedy shall be " by due
course of law" Tho Ian making power
| has prescribed the due course of law"
| by providing various courts ana
various procedures appropriate for
| different inquiries. a person feel
| ing that he has been injured, and
desiring legal remedy, must apply to
| that court and make use of that pro-
| oedure provided by law for the parti"u-
IL N Of
| petitioner has not done.
Some of The injurie; complained Of
are ccgnizable only BY the Probate
Court. Others are cogniZabl only
| through a regular action at law or by
| petition for review of such actions.
Still others are only subjects for crmi-
nal prosecution by Indictment. None
| of them are CoSniZabi" by this court on
Il petition like that presented to the
presiding justice. tn court had no
| authority to take cosnl2arCe of it, and
! the presiding justice was bound to re-
| fuse to entertain it. Tie petitioner
should have taken each complaint Of
! injury TO the particular court and in
| the particular manner prescribed by
law for that injury.
He urges in argument. however, thai
| he mas hitherto brought i:is. complaints
| before the appropriate courts and in
| the prescribed manner. bu. that the de-
cisions have been wrong and unjust 20
| him. and hence that he has not had
| remedy for his injuries though he has
| followed the due course of law"
| Here, again, the law pre- scribcs the due
course of law to be followed by those
| of the first instance. That course is by
appeal in the appropriate way pro-
vided. The petitionc" mas not followed
either of these ways. His Petition must
| therefore be dismissed. He must Col
| low the prescribed course of law. the
same as other citizens are required to
| Go.
In conclusion we would say to the
petitioner that, because Of his state
| ment that he could no. get counsel, we
have twice heard him patiently despite
the great irregularity of his procedure,
have twice Consdere his allegations
carefully, and have now twice adjudgei
that such a petition rs this cannot be
entertained (sec 90 Ne. 2O0). He should
| realize that men differ IN opinions. but
| that the opinion of the court once
| formed and delivered must prevail.
Like other disappointed suitors, he
must accept the courts opinion and
abide by it. To again vex the court
and the parties by again litigating in
| this irregular way questions already
| decided. will put him i'll peril of punish
ment for contempt. The courts of this
state have heard Fin and rendered
| thcir judgments If he desires further
litigation. he must sock other forums.
| Petition dismissed.
| Received Sept. goth, 1908.
Samuel D. Plummc" W. Benjamin q.
| Kimball. Rescript by Savage. J. lNo
! oDinion)
| The plaintiff, who sues rs indorSec of