Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-02-23

Waterville. Mr.. Pishon testified tina,
he, in conjunction with his associates
on the board, had assessed the prop.
erty of the Lockwood Company, and
had placed :, value upon 4Ol7 separate
pieces of property owned by the cor
pOration.
Mr.. Eaton offered. in his argument
in the presentation OF the petition,
citations of several cases that ap-
Feared to be similar to the one i'm
hearing, and especially upon the writ
or prohibition" which he commended
was not in common use in this state,
and which has been used only in one
or two cases IS far as the records of
the Maine courts shOw.
Appearing to oppose the granting
OF the petition, Mr.. Baker made a
strong argument and cited many au-
thOrities to support his content: ion that
the granting of the petition Tor Il
writ Of prohibition would not be an
appropriate action for the court to
pursue He cOntended that the true
office of a writ Of prohibition" did not
apply in any particular to the needs of
the case in hearing. He said that it
appeared that the counsel for the pc
titio,.crs had taken recourse to an
ancient weapon OF unwieldy proper
tons, and one that now that it had
been dragged from it's dusty resting
place. was too great to find a suitable
resting place. Several times, Mr..
Baker referred to the action of the pc
titiOners in asking for a writ of pro-
that there was no usurpatiOn of juris-
Giction by the county commissioners,
as complained of in the petition, and
he said that IN presenting its petition,
the city of Waterville asked that the
commissioners be prohibited
from the performance of their just and
honest duty as laid down by the law,
and he quoted many authorities to
show that the present proceedings We're
to the case in hearing.
Continuing in this line of argument,
Mr.. Baker said that according To the
opinion expressed in law records. by
Chief Justice Shaw of Massachusetts,
the office of Il writ of prohibition is to
prohibit an inferior court or tribunal
from exercising jurisdiction in cases
another MaSsa chusctts Supreme court
case quoted, it was the opinion Of the
presiding justices that the writ OF pro-
hibition should not be granted unless
il could be proven that the jurisdiction
Of the tribunal. against whom the pc
litiOn WAS directed, was in doubt, or
hat the merits of the case would be
affected by n hearing or trial in said
tribunal or court. Mr.. Baker asserted
that the one vital point that had been
overlooked. apparently. by the petit
toner was that the court established
by the county commissioners was the
,nly one that really could exercise |
1T this stage Of the Mat
ter, and that in applying for a writ of
the petitioner had sought |
the aid of a misconceived remedy.
Justice Whitehouse, at the conclusion |
Of the hearing which lasted until after
o'clock. stated that he would hand
down his decision OH or before Satur- |
day of this week.
The hearing on the matter, which was
by the county commission
ers at Waterville. and which was in
terrupted last Monday morning by the
service of the petition for the writ of
and the annexed order of
the court for the hearing. will be con-
tinued next Tuesday morning. Wheth-
pr or no: the investigation of the valu-
alton and assessment of the Lockwood
Company tax will be continued at that
hearing depends entirely upon the
coming decision of the court.