Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-12-12
The Law COURT.
Opening Of the December
Term Tuesday.
Androscoggin and Aroostook
Cases to Be Heard To-day.



convened here at 10 o'clock, Tuesday
morning. Prayer was offered by Rev.
| Charles A. Hayden, pastor Of the Win
thrOp Street Universalist church of
Augusta. Those sitting are Associate
Justices Lucillius A. Emery of Els
worth, William Penn Whitehouse of
Augusta. Albert r. Savage of Auburn,
Frederick A. Powers of Houlton, Henry
c. Peabody of Portland and Albert NJ.
Spear CT Gardiner. Associate Justice
Sewall G. Strout of Portland was as
signed to sit at this term but he was
unable to do SO on account of Illness
After the prayer adjournment was
made until ~ o'clock Wednesday morn
| ing ont of respect to the memory of the
| late Chief Justice Andrew p. Wiswell
| Of Ellsworth.
The term will probably last 10 days
| There are liz continued cases and So
| new entries on the docket
| The assignment of judges for the
nisi prius terms will not be an
nounced until the latter part Of the
term.
| AndrOscOggin and ArOostook county
cases will be argued today.
| The new entries from Aroostook
county are as follows: kimball versus
Gilmore; Taylor versus the inhabitants
| of Caribou; Young versus Kimball.
| The continued cases from Aroostook
| county are as follows:
| Fenlason versus SWEET; Frommel ct
ais. versus Foss; Holmes versus Con-
tinental Casualty Company; Inhabi-
tants Of Houlton. in equity. versus Tit
comb. ct ais; POmroy versus Bangor &
Aroostook Railroad Company; Smart
versus Aroostook Lumber Company;
| Valley versus the Boston & Maine
Railroad Company.
The continued cases from Androscog-
gin county are as follows:
| Atlas Shoe Company versus
Bechard; Hutchinson versus the Will
| lard Lumber Company; Lawrence in
equity versus Heckler; Noyes & Com
pany versus White, administrator;
State versus Intoxicating Liquors.
Grand Trunk Railway Company.
claimant; State versus Martel.
The new entries from Androscoggin
county are as follows:
Blake versus Glodenis; Donnell,
| petitioner for review versus Hodsdon;
| IIersey versus Sprague; HutchinS
versus Lewis and trustee; Inhabitants
of East Livermore versus the Liver
| moro Falls Trust and Banking Com
pany; Libbey & Bingley Company
versus the Union Water Power Com
pany; Lynn Shoe Company, in equity
versus tie Auburn Shoe Company;
Pelkey versus HOdgdon: Roberts
versus Roache; State versus 1ntOxi-
eating Liquors. Tarbox Express Com
pany claimant; Watson versus Long:
State versus Intoxicating Liquors. Tar
box Express Company, claimant;
Union Water Power Company versus
Libby & Dingley. ct ais; State versus
Intoxicating Liquors Tarbox Express
Company claimant; Victoria Acctylene
Company versus Gushing.
The following are the continued cases
| from Cumberland county:
Boehm. ct ais, versus Allen; Conant.
| appellant, from the decision of the
| board Of county commissioners; Graf
| fam versus Brown; Jansen versus
Kyer; Jordan, ct ais, versus selectmen
| of Cape Elizabeth. petitioners, for
amendment of the town records;
| Yourg versus Chandler.
The new entries from Cumberland
county are as follows:
Fox versus Crague; Leavitt versus
Dow; Logue versus the Grand Trunk
| Railway Company; Moody. in equity,
versus the Port Clyde Development
| Company; Smith versus Brewer; State
versus Mcneil; State versus Sulko-
| witch.