Daily Kennebec journal., 1908-12-21
THE Law COURT.
Somerset Docket Com
p|eted Saturday.
Argument Of Case Testing Con.
stiiutiona|ily StuTgis Law.
Rescripts Handed Down In Plscata-
. uuis and cumbe erIand Cases.

The Somerset docket was completed
in the law court Saturday, the cntire
afternoon session being taken up witt
the case of Statenvs. Poulin, which in
wolves the constitutionality Of Section
3 of the Sturgis law, so-called, pro-
viding for the appointment Of specia
attorney to prosecute liquor cases
There will be no session of the law
court today and when court comes II
again on Tuesday at 10 A. NJ. Wash
.ngton and Waldo cases will be called
The first case to be argued Saturda,
was that of Padham VS.. Meader. Thl:
is an action of assumpslt to recover OF
numbering contract and comes up OF
motion in the usual form to set aside
The verdict, which was given for the
plaintiff in the lower court. George w
Cover of Skowhegan for plaintiff, l.
f. Folsom of Norridgewock for de.
fendant.
Hill ct ais in equity VS.. Coburn e'
ais This is a bill in equity to comps
the conveyance of One-half Of tht
southern portion Of Bigelow township
situated partly in Franklin and part.
before Judge Savage, who decreed tc
the heirs of E. B. Hill, one-half OF A.
900 acres, the balance of about 5000
acres being decided against Hill. Bot
the heirs of f. R. Hill and the heirs
of A. and p Coburn, the other partle
involved, appealed from the decision
of Judge Savage. Danforth 4 Walton
for plaintiff Butler & Johnson for de.
fendaEt. Both parties agree upon tht
fact that the Coburns sold TO Hill II
1867 and were paid for one-half of q
certain title in Bigelow township
They disagree as to what title the Co
burns sold to Hill, no deed being given
The plaintiffs claim it was one-half Of
what title the Coburns had, while the
defendants claim it was simply one
|half of the tax title.
When the law court convened at
r. NJ. for the afternoon session tht
case of State VS.. Omar Poulin Of Jack
ran was called. This is a case of muc!
interest as it involves the validity .
the conviction found against Poulii
for maintaining a common nuisance OF
Indictment by the Somerset grand jury
which Amos K. Butler of SkowhegaI
acted as special attorney for the Stat,
under appointment from the Governol
IN accordance with Section s of Chai,
ter 92 OF the Laws OF 1905, known d.
il,e SturgiS act. The real question d
issue is the right of said Butler /,
prosecute. The respondent claims tho
the act is unconstitutional and tina
therefore the prosecuting attorney ha,
80 right to lie with the grand jury tina
returned the Indictment. A motion va
titd lii the lower court in the natur
q a plea in abatement to quaSh IL,
ii;ul. tlnent for the reasons abuY,
stated. The motion was overruleu an
the respondent placed upon trial, coz
victed and sentenced to Imprisonment
OF four months in Jail and fine 0,
800. A motion in arrest of judgmen,
was filed and the question comes to tn.
Iull bench on exceptions overruling I'll,
motions. The respondent argued tiia
Ie Les stature could nOl delegate
,I4e Governor the power to appoint !,
special attorney to take the place Z.
county attorney, and therefore ii.
appointment OI the special attorn~.
vas void. The prosecuting attorney
nnc argued the case in his own be
.l.alf, maintained that his appolntEeI.
"ds constitutional and that by vlrtu,
u a previous statute making til
ounty attorney also a States attoi
ney, the Governor had a right to ap
point to act for the State, instead OF
employing the county attorney To-
mat purpose. George w. Cover TO.
respondent, Amos *. Butler, specia.
attorney, for the State.