Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1905-05-16
Law Court Decision.

Inv SVesAS 6S~sSs~
A rescript has been handed down IN
the case of Inhabitants Of Peru and DIX
field vs.. Peter G.. Barrett ct al. The
action was brought by the towns to re-
cover damages for interference with the
business of the ferry run by the two
plaintiff towns, in the manner explained
10 the rescript, which is as follows:
Inhabitants of Peru and Dixfield VS..
Peter G.. Barrett and Irving c. Kidder.
Rescript by Peabody, ].
Action on the case brought by the
plaintiff towns as prOprietors OF ferry
across the Androscoggin River against
the defendants for damages caused by |
interference with their rights in ferrying
passengers and property.
The case is before the law court on
report. /
The ferry was legally established and
the plaintiffs we're charged with the duty
of it's maintenance in accordance with
Chap. 20, Sec. 2, r. S. 1888.
The defendants contend that the
declaration does not sufficiently set out
either statutory or common law cause
of action. The only proprietorship in
ferry in Maine is the franchise con-
ferred by statute, and the party holding
it has no common law remedy against
those who without right interfere with
his profits, but the statute affords pro-
lection. 1t is not necessary in civil
action to set out the statute or to make
any reference to it, but the case must be
brought within its provisions by alleging
the requisite facts. The plaintiffs
declaration is sufficient to present case
by statute.
While the obligation rested upon the
plaintiffs by law to maintain the ferry so
as to make it convenient for the public
they were only required to act when no
person was found to keep the ferry for
the established tolls. In such case they
must provide person to be licensed to
keep It and were obliged to pay the ex-
penses beyond the tolls received for
maintaining it.
When towns so provide person to
keep the ferry they are entitled to the
tolls and profits of the ferriage and have
a right of action against those interfering
with them.
1t was not necessary to allege in the
declaration the action of the town in
providing ferry keeper or that the
keeper was licensed and gave bond; it is
presumed that all things were correctly
done by the plaintiffs to entitle them to
the right of action.
If any prequisites have been omitted
the question may be raised by the de-
, PENDANTS in defense. The defendants,
prior to May, 1902. were operating the
| ferry under an arrangement made with
j the selectmen Of the two towns, but since
r that arrangement ceased the ferry has
been operated under the direction of the
municipal officers.
, The liability of the defendants de-
pends upon the character of their acts in
respect to the plaintiffs ferry. They
deny that they keep a ferry contrary to
the statute or transport passengers or
property across any established ferry for
} hire, or furnish for hire any boat or craft
Ifor such purposes. They were mer-
chants and kept country store near the
ferry in question and had a storehouSe
on the opposite side of the river. In
the storehouse they deposited grain and
, merchandise for their customers. A
short distance below the ferry approach
. es they controlled land on each shore OF
the river. They had one or two small
rowboats and they gave their customers
t free use of the boats in crossing the
: river to trade at their store. This privi-
! lege was we'll known to those trading
with the defendants, and it was an in
: ducement intended to increase and did
Q increase their business and diminished
D the tolls of the ferry. This was in effect
a transportation across the river OF
q persons and property for hire.
q The defendants had the right to keep
and use boats for their own accommoda-
D ton in passing over the river and trans
r porting their families, servants, and
g goods, and occasionally to carry over a
q customer and his purchase, or to use
o them under any similar conditions.
The statute fixes no limit to the ex-
elusive privilege of the holder of the
ferry franchise, and it must be determin-
8 ed by rule of Interpretation consistent
: with reason and justice.
i The criterion is interference with the
: ferry franchise causing a natural, and
: appreciate loss of patronage.
There had been change by regular
proceedings of the location of the ferry
8 thirty or forty rods up the river, and
q changes were made in the highways
l leading to the new location. The de-
PENDANTS boats were kept for the most
Q part at the landing of the old ferry and
Q were run at different points between the
old and new locations. This transporta-
f ton of passengers and goods clearly
diminished the plaintiffs profits within
the line of travel to which they had the
/ exclusive ferry rights.
Judgment for Plaintiffs.
= Damages to be assessed at nisi prius.