The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1909-07-01
Verdict Sustained.

A rescript has recently been landed
down by Justice Bird OF the Maine
Supreme Court In the case of sargent
VS. Wilbur, ruling the motions and
exception on which 1t was appealed.
The case was tried at the March
term of the Supreme Judicial Court
for this county. The plaintiff is a res
ident of Hinckley and the defend
ant is a contractor, living at or near
Old Town. Forrest Goodwin, Esq. of
this place was attorney for the plain
tiff and the defense was conducted by
f. w. Knowlton, Esq. of Old Town.
At the March term verdict of STA 80
was rendered in favor of the plaintiff
The verdicts sustained by this rescript
is that of s114 30 rendered at the Term
above mentioned.
This is an action of assumpst brought to
recover a sum Of money alleged to be due the
plaintiff for the board of sundry men. The
defendant had contracted to construct a
building at Fairfield and subet a portion OF
the work to plumber who sent certain men
10 perform the labor. Unable to find other
place to board they applied to plaintiff tell
ing him that the plumber sending them
would pay the bill. He received them and
evidently gave credit to the plumber. he
latter became financially involved and failed
to pay the bill and was later adudged bank
rupt. The plaintiff alleges that when his
bill for board amounted to about one hun
dred dollars, he communicated with the de-
PENDANT and declared he would discontinue
boarding the men unless defendant would
pay the bill for board already contracted
and make weekly payments therefor there
alter and that the defendant agreed. This
defendant denied. The verdict was for the
plaintiff and the defendant moves for a new
trial upon the usual grounds.
The evidence was conflicting and the cred.
Utility of the parties and their witnesses wa:
involved. The questions to be determined
were, therefore, peculiarly for the Jury and
we are able to conclude that their finding
based upon the evidence, the inference:
drawn from facts which they may have found
to be proved and the probabilities of the case
as found by them is SO clearly wrong as &c
show that the conclusion was reached
through misunderstanding of the evidence
or was the result Of bias or improper motives
The motion must be overruled.
In the course of the trial defendant offered
/ Il
sci for plaintiff before suit brought, in
which counsel, admitting that there might be
some question as to the legal liability of the
the defendant, requests payment of plaintiff :
claim and offers to hold defendant Harmless:
in case of payment and his failure to recover
the amount from'the assignee of the bank
rupt. Defendant offered the letter as ev
dence tending to show the story plaintiff
probably told his counsel at the time thu
latter wrote it. The letter was excluded anC
to its exclusion the defendant excepted upor
the ground that the "letter is contradiction,
of the testimony of the plaintiff in the case
and was offered for the purpose of contro
verting said testimony
Expressing no view as to the extent, if any
that an attorney before suit brought may bne
his client by opinions as to the law of tht
case communicated to the opposing party, we
are unable to find the defendant aggrevec
by the exclusion ofthe letter. The opinion
of counsel for plaintiff may have been an er
roneous conclusion of law npon the facts
stated by the plaintiff at the trial as well as {
correct conclusion of law upon the fact!
otherwise or elsewhere stated. The question
which would be presented to the jury upor
admission of the letter in evidence would BIT
of the most vague and speculative character
Moreover there is no evidence of tht
actual authority of the attorney of the plain
tiff in the suit to act as his agent before it
commencement: See Stone VS.. Bank o
Commerce, ia u. S. Ala, AL. The entr,
must therefore be
Motion and Exceptions overruled
Indictment on the verdict