Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-08-09
WALDO COUNTY REscRiPTS.
Judgment For State in One Case, Elk
ception Overruled In Other.

Rescripts in the Waldo county cases
| were handed down Saturday by Judge
Cornish of the Supreme Judicial Court
| The list of the rescripts is as follows:
State in scire facias VS.. Winfield S.
administer, l.. L. Gentner and Charles
w. Lancaster.
Rescript, Cornish, ]. No opinion.
This is an action of scire facias upon a
recognizance taken before the Supreme
Judicial Court for Waldo county at the
court on report.
No defence on the merits is presented
to this court but the suggestion is made
that the report does not show service of
the writ upon the defendants. This claim
must have been interposed simply for de-
lay. If necessary The report could be
discharged in order to have the omission
supplied but that is unnecessary as
there was general appearance for the
defendants by counsel and lack of ser
vice if any was thereby cured.
Judgment for the State for $500 and
costs.
State in scire facias VS.. Winfield S.
Edminster, Ben D.. Field and William
A. Clark
Rescript, Cornish j.
before the judge of the police court for
the city of Belfast. The defendants
pleaded null tiel record and the case
comes to this court on exceptions to the
ruling of the presiding justice, admitting
the recogniZance in evidence and giving
Judgment for the State upon the intro
duction of the record of default of the
defendants on said recognizance
The defendants contend that in three
respects there was a fatal variance be-
tween the allegations in the writ and the
recitals in the recognizance and record.
Held. /. hat there is no fatal vari-
ance between the allegations and the writ
that under the recogniZance Edmnster
was to appear before the Supreme Judi
cial Court and answer to a complaint
now pending in said court for keeping
and depositing intoxicating liquors at
Belfast" &c, while the condition of the
|recognizance was Ito appear and prose-
cute his said appeal
To appear in the higher court and an
swer to a complaint there pending, nee
essarily implies that it is pending there
on appeal Inc nature OF the OHence as
set forth in the writ shows that the
higher court could have no original juris-
diction of the matter and that if pending
there it must be on appeal. The allega-
ton in the writ and the recital in the
recognizance are in effect only different
methods of stating the same fact.
.. That the claim of variance between
the allegation in the writ that the recog-
nizance was taken before Reuel w.
Rogers. judge of the police court of the
city of Belfast and the recital in the
recognizance that it was taken lat a
a Police Court holden at the Police Court
Room in said city is without merit.
The words are equivalents. One court
and one alone was designated
5. That the word indictment" instead
of complaint used in the writ is mere
clerical error, self-evident and harmless.
After alleging that these three defen-
dants gave the recognizance in question
on "a complaint and that the principal
had made default ION said complaint
the averment that the sureties in the
same recogn;zance had defaulted ION said
Indictment, is such an apparent c,eresa