Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-03-20
Hands Down Decisions in
Three kennebec Gases.
Exception 0yerruIed IN Finn vs..
n. E. Telephone Co.
Same In Purinton vs.. Purinton.--Susiained
In Church vs.. Knowles.

The following receipts in Kennebec
county cases have been received from
the law court:
Kennebec county, Edward T. Finn
vs.. New England Telephone & Tele-
graph Co. rescript by Spear. ].
This was an action on the case for
negligence. The case comes up ON ex-
ceptions by the plaintiff. The plaintiff
introduced testimony tending to show
that the accident in which he was in
jured was occasioned through the neg l.
gence of the foreman, who assured him.
without any action or warning as he
was about to enter the place Of danger
| to begin his work, that everything was
all right. The foreman was q witness
for the defendant, and on cross-exami-
nation was asked whether he had not
on the evening of the accident request
ed the night editor of the local news
paper not to publish any account of the
accident in the paper and denied that
he had done SO. The plaintiff then Of
fered evidence that the foreman on the
evening of the accident did request said
night editor to suppress the account of
the accident, which evidence was eX-
! Guided.
! Held, that the answer of the foreman
/ that he had not requested the suppress
sion Of the account of the accident was
| in response to a question involving a
| collateral matter brought out on cross
| examination and therefore could not be
| contradicted.
As tending to show an admission Of
liability on the part of the company
In, Io,,
evidence that a few weeks after the ae-
cident the plaintiff. without any re-
quest ON his part and before he had
| made or filed any claim. was sent for
by the local manager of the defendant
company at Ellsworth, Me-, the home
of the plaintiff and was offered by the
company through such manager two
| checks covering the expenses of the ac-
cident, accompanied by a receipt which
he Was requested to sign for said
amount: that said statement or receipt
contained Il clause releasing and dis
charging the defendant company from
all liability for this particular acci-
dent which was then specifically men,
toned ana described. That the plaintiff
refused to sign and the checks were not
delivered to him. To the exclusion OF
ed.
Held, that the above offer fell within
the rule of compromise offers which is in
cases Of tort that, when q party has
reasonable ground for anticipating that
demand will be made against him for
damages. the claim may then be said to
so far exist as to authorize him. without
any move on the part Of the claimant,
to seek Il settlement of it and to be pro-
tected in so doing by the general rules
of law applicable to compromise settle
ments. That IS, an offer to purchase
peace made either with intent to prevent
Il possible controversy or to end one that
has arisen. cannot be used in evidence as
an admission Of liability.
Held, ALSO that the admissibillty or nom
admissibility of evidence offered 10 prove
an alleged compromise depends upon the
intention Of the party seeking it, If he
intends his offer to be a compromise set
Element it is inadmiSsible II he intends
1t to be an admission of liability, coupled
with an endeavor to settle such liability, |
then it is admissible to prove such liabi- |
ity. 49, |
In the case at bar it was clearly with |
in the province of the court to determine |
the preliminary question of fact as to |
what was the intention of the defendant |
in making the alleged offer of settlement |
To tho exercise of his discretion in this |
respect no exception can lie
Exceptions overrued.
Exceptions were overruled IN the Ken
nebec case of Lizzie NJ Purinton. libel
liant. against Humphrey Purinton in a re-
script handed down by Justice Spear. |
There were two exceptions. both relating
10 the admissibility OF evidence in the
case when 1t was on trial.
In the Kennebec case OF John F. |
Church VS.. Hebron E. Knowles, rescript
by Justice Spear. an action on a promis-
sorry note. tho exceptions We're sustained
The action was to recover the price of a /
pair Of oxen and the defence was the
criminal statute against the sale of ir-
fected or exposed cattle, the oxen hav-
ing been infected with tuberculosis from
which they afterward died. The court
held that the refusal Of the presiding
justice to charge the Jury that il the
oxen were infected with tuberculosis at
the time of sale the plaintiff could not
recover.
This was refused and instead the cour.
gave the following: IF they were sold
on inspection and the plaintifY was abso-
lutely ignorant Of any infection and had
reason to suppose they were all right and
sound and had no sufficient reason to
doubt it. he is entitled to recover on this
note
The rescript in the closing paragrarb
says: We think the instruction request |
ed by the defendant should have been
given and that the insaruction given was
erroneous"
iaborer breaking stone recently on |
the roadside at Marlborough, England.