Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-12-21
Law COURT
Will Officially Adjourn
This Morning.
Equity Arguments Occupy All
Friday Forenoon.
Rescripts In Cumberland and Knox
County Cases.

The last cases of the term we're ar
gued Friday morning, the first one for
argument being Strout in Equity vs..
Lord, executor 1t is technically
known as y demurrer to bill in
equity, the demurrer being sustained
by the lower court and ii came to this
court on exceptions. The point of the
demurrer being proper parties de-
PENDANTS. This case was argued by
George F. Haley in support of the eX-
ceptions and by Frank l.. Higgins of
Limercl. in support of the ruling Of
the lower court.
The next case in order for argument,
also a York county case, was the in
habitan:s of York vs.. Stewart and
others. This Was Il suit on Il town
treasurcrs bond. which demurrer was
filed to the declaration and the denur
rer was sustained by the supreme court.
The case was taken TO the law court
on exceptions by the plaintiff. George
+. Haley appeared for the plaintiff and
Judge Cieayes for the defendant.
The last case for argument at this
term OF court was the case of Hayford.
appellant VS.. the municipal officers of
bangor MS case COMES lToln an
unsettled matter regarding a certain
piece of property at one time owned
by Mrs. Hayford who is now de-
ceased. f. c. Ryder of Bangor APP
peared for the plaintiff and c. A. Bal
ley Of the same city for the defendant.
AS there are several matters that the
justices wish 10 talk over in judicial
conference court will not officially adj
journ until some time this morning.
probably ten o'clock.
The following disposition has been
made of the kennebec county cases:
Emery S. Farnham $. George A. Lay
decker and TT, exceptions overruled
for want of prosecution. Charles a.
Farnham VS.. George A. Laydecker. ex
ceptiors cverruled for want of prose-
cutIon. George A. Laydecker VS.. Charles
f. Farnham and TT, exceptions over
ruled for want of prosecution. George
A. Laydecker VS.. Charles Farnham.
exceptions overruled for want Of pros
ecution. Arthur l.. Reed VS.. Alton
Richardson, motion and exceptions
overrulAd for want of prosecution,
Moore Spinning Co. VS.. Maine Central
Railroad, motion overruled for want
OF prosecution. Edwin o. Trask Us.
HalloweIi Granite Co. to be argued in
writing. Harding Whitman Co. in re-
plevin VS.. VI. c. Il. r, motion over
ruled for want Of prosecution. A. T.
Fuller vs.. Aaron Leighton. motion
overrued for want of prosecution.
Samuel Woods vs.. Charles w. Blais-
dell. to be argued in writing in 1870
and 20 or exceptions overruled. Bernard
f. Gntchell vs.. +. l.. Page, ct ais, ar
gued orally. Frank O. Young vs.. Ira
II. Randall. argued orally. Frank b.
Collier VS.. Oakland Wooden Co. con-
tinuad. Gardiner Savings Institution
VS.. Elnora NJ. Reynolds. ct al. to be
argued in writing in 5000 and 20 or APP
peal dismissed. J. w. Hayhurst VS.
Michel J. NORM. to be argued in writ
ing in Isis and ) or decided without
y. Bcrliawsky VS.. H. Rosenthal, to
be argued in writing in 30-"0-10 or ex-
ceptions nverruled.
Bessie II. Healey VS. Dexter H.
Spalnding. argued orally Leon Herbt
VS.. George H. Simpson. continued
Charles Pomcrleau vs.. David MERCER.
continued. George W. Rolfe vs.. Fred
w. Brown. motion Overruled for want
of prosecution.
Cephas NJ. Rolfe vs. Sabasticook
Water Power Co. continued
Russell c. Taylor Admr, VS.. Mary
A. CroWell, continued to Portland.
Werner Go. vs.. Lillian Wentworth.
motion and exceptions overrued for
want of prosecution.
state VS.. Thomas Mclaughlin. LIQUOR
nuisance; Harry a. Jones. same; Rose
Carson Howard, same; Henry Stickney.
SAM; John Hyland. same; Fred Mat
thieu same; Benoit Arsenault. same:
Benoit Arsenault, Applt., search and
seizure. Henry Stickney. same; Harry
A. Jones, same. Albert Field. Applt.,
illegal keeping of intoxicating liquor:
Clement NJ. Giveen, same; Fred Mat
thieu. same; John Hyland, Applt..
search and seizure. In all the above
cases exceptions We're overruled for
want Of prosecution. Judgment for the
State