Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-12-14
Rescript by Emery In Reed
vs.. Richardson Case.
Interesting Case o. Augusta
Search and Seizure Argued.
How Far Sturgis Deputies May Go
Is Point to Be Shown.

morning the first matter on the docket
being the arrangement of the Hancock
county cases. Two cases. Haslam vs..
Jordan, Admir-. are to be argued in
writing and in the new entries the case
of Atwood vs.. Maine Hub and Manu-
| facturin Co. was marked for oral ar
Gunents. The case of Herlishy, Peti-
TONER Tor Habcas Corpus vs.. Mayo.
Sheriff. was continued to Bangor by
agreement of the attorneys.
! Kcnrcnec county cases were next in
order and several dispositions of dockt
cases were made All the State cases
/ we're oVelruled for want OF prOsecu-
! tion, also the cases of Farnham VS..
| L"ydeC<cr and Tr and Farnham VS..
| Leydecker. One of the old cases on the
docket, Harding Whitman Co. in Re
pievin vs.. NJ. {. Il. r. Co. was dis
| missed.
Other cases dismissed were Lydecker
W. Farnham TT. and Lydecker vs..
Falnnam; iolfe vs.. Brown; Moore
| Spinning Co. vs.. NJ. c. r. r.
| Cases to be argued in writing are:
Healy vs.. Spaulding and Berliawsky in
| repl2vn W Rosenthal The case Of
| Tra5H ". the Hallowell Granite Co
will be argued in writing and the YER
dict over which there vas controversy
was explained in court. Reed W. Rich
sr,ls,n. Jr.. WAS argued in writing. I.
| is the sequel of Il horse case. The plain
tiff IN the case. Reed. bought Il horse
| OF Richardson and the horse being
shortly afterwards taken i'll with cpl
zootic. :ery soon died. Reed refused to
pay for the animal. claiming that the
horse WAS sick when he bought it, By
the decision of the court exceptions
"Nerruled." Reed wins his case
! With one or two exceptions all the
cases continued were marked for the
Bangor term. attorneys in two in
stances asking for continuance to the
next law term in that city.
| Th" case of Bernard Getchcli. q drug
! GiSt of this city. W. Page and others.
vas the most important on the Kcnnc-
| BIC county docket. A. NJ Goddard APP
p"arcd for the plaintiff and Charles F.
Johnson of Waterville for the defend
ants. Certain goods and chattles We're
seized and taken from the plaintiffs
drug store in common with some Ii
| quOr. The plaintiff claims that the
goods which the Enforcement deputies
seized should have been made part Of
their returns. He also claimed that a
portion Of the goods seized were not
within the rights of the deputies
Mr.. Johnson maintained that the
goods were not contraband. but were
| taken by tho officers as evidence and
therefor" need not have been entered in
their returns. Just how far an enforce
ment deputy may go in making Il Seiz-
ur" will doubtless be shown in the ruI-
ing at the court in this case. therefore
~" matter is of particular interest
lr ire case Of Arthur L. Reed vs. Al
ton richardson. Jr.. rescript. drawn
~ Justice Emery. was handed down.
This rescript is given in another col
umn.
TE"rr was on" solitary case argued
from Hancock county. Atwood vs.
Maine Hub and Manufacturing CO. This
case was argued during the morning
S"ssiGn. The action was one to have the
verdict for the plaintiff set aside
against the weight of evidence.
The case resulted from a contested
bill for lumber cutting l.. +. Deasv Of
Bar Harbnr appeared for the plaintiff
Lewis {. Stcarns Of Bangor argued for
| the defence
IN" cas- Of Young IS. Randall Joseph
| W iil'hr'N"n for the plaintiff and 4. N
Goddard for the defendant. was th..
lrSt to occupy the attention of tn.
court at the opening of the Afternoon,
session. The plaintiff. Frank o. Young
| OF TINS city. was injured July % 1896,
| ny having two fingers cut off by q saw
in tho defendants mill The contentio,
81 Randall is to the effect that there
W"r" sufficient back boards and thai
y" Itandall ought not to have had his
hand IN The log therefore they were
no. liable for any damages caused by
the accident
| IN" leXt cas-" to come bel IRE the
court WAS licaly vs. Spauding. a Wat
"rVIlle matter that came before tho
superior court in that CITY last June.
resulting in Il verdict for the defendant
{. +. Johnson of Watcrvlle appearad
for the plaintiff and IT, D. Eaton Of
tn" sun" city for the defendant
In tn" lower court this ease resulted
IN verdict for the defendant The
COS" was taken to this tribunal to a,.t
| u reversal of the decision of the lower.
court. The case may be known as ;;
i"ncc case. tn" defendant having erect
! CT fence |, feet high in front of IN.
defendants HON" on I,url"igh street in
NatervilIc. Because this fence was pu:
| up. obstructinS the plaintiffs view ana
marring the beauty of his place of resi-
dencc. suit was brought to recover
damages
The following counties have Lccn as
signed as follows for the first fo,;r
DAYS of next week, Monday. Lincoln.
oxford, P"n"bsc"t: Tuesday. Piscata-
quis. Sagadahoc; Wednesday. Somerset,
waldo; Thursday. Washington, York.
kcnnebec County Rescript.
Arthur l.. Reed vs.. Alton Richardson
Jr.