Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-12-03

toxicating Liquors Nos 10, 20, 81 %.
70, "A and 70. Rescript, Spear, J.
Seven cases are considered in this
opinion. each involving the single
question of constructive delivery of
Intoxicating liquors by common car
rier under the so called Wilson Act
No other question is raised either by
the State Of claimant of the liquors
seized The facts disclose that certain
intoxicating liquors We're shipped from
different points without the State ar
irving at different times by way of the
Maine Central Railroad at their
freight station in the city of Lewiston
All the goods were shipped in the
names of local firms who did not order
nor claim them, or to fictitious names,
persons to the Railroad Company I'M
known. The various invoices upon
their arrival were placed in the freight
shed of the defendant company and
from time to time thereafter We're
seized upon proper warrants charging
the liquors to be deposited within the
State for the purpose of illegal sale.
The warrants We're served, the seiZ-
ures made, the liquors libeled. the
N'Siliidiie appear b, q ISell ms was iieiV,
the liquors were declared forfeited and
the claimant appealed. The fact that
a portion Of these liquors finally de-
clared forfeited had been once seized
and ordered returned on the ground
I that they then came within the protec-
ton of the Interstate commerce clause
Of the Constitution. becomes i'm
material in the consideration of the
enc issue involved The longest time
any package was in the custody Of the
Railroad Company after its arrival at
Lewiston, before seizure, was a period
of "a days. The element of time
makes this case the strongest for the
State, as all the other elements are
common to all the cases.
No question is raised that the goods
seized were moving in interstate COM
niarce unless they had been CON
structively delivered to the con-
sigpees.
The rule is we'll established that 4
constructive delivery can be effected
only Ly an agreement between the car
rier or middle man and the buyer or
person claiming under him whereby
the former agrees to hold goods for the
latter fOr some purpose other than
that of carriage to and delivery al
their original destination. In the alb
sence of an agreement of the buyer
with the conSignee the carrier will be
presumed to hold the goods in his orig
inal capacity.
The facts in the case at bar are not
sufficient upon which to predicate d
constructive delivery under the law
hn Stir ,1nt in,
the report, the entry must be in num-
bers 10 TO % inclusive.
Judgment for the claimant.
Liquors ordered returned.
Reed Dec. 1st, 1905
Penobscot County. Patrick H. Dunn
vs.. Atwell A. Moody ct al. Rescript
(No opinion). Bird, J.
This is an action for the recovery OF
compensation for the services of the
plaintiff in endeavoring to sell certain
property of defendants and the ex-
penses sustained by plaintiff in carry
ing out his undertaking The verdict
was in favor of defendants. Eoth par
ties admit that there was special
cCntr lct. but they differ as to its
terms. The defendants claim that the
agreed compensation was to be paid if
a sale was made within a certain time
and that the expenses were to be in
cludel in such compensation. The
plaintiff alleges that no limit of time
was fixed and that the expenses were
to be met by defendants in addition to
the agreed compensation. The testl-
mony, consisting of oral evidence and
sundry letters exchanged between the
parties, was conflicting. The issue pre-
scented was peculiarly for the jury.
Upon a careful reading of the tcsti-
mony the Court is unable to arrive at
the conclusion that the verdict was in
disputably wrong or that the jury was
preJuCiiced or biased or acted under
misrepresentation of the evidence.
The motion is therefore Overruled.
Reed Dec. 1st, 1908.