Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-12-18
Law COURT !. :.
ssES-@
Hancock Docket Is Com
p|eted Friday Forenoon.
kennebec County Gases Are
Now Being Argued.
Entire Day Saturday will Be Need.
ed for This County.

The Hancock county cases were
completed in the law court Friday
forenoon and the Kennebec county
docket was called at the opening OF
the afternoon session. Among the at
torneys present at the afternoon ses-
sion from out of town were Charles F
Johnson, Carroll N. Perkins, Harvey
d. Eaton, Frank E. Brown, Dana P
Foster, John E. Nelson and Frank
Plumstead Of Waterville, r. S. Par
fridge of Whtefeld, Fred Emery
Beane of Hallowell, George W. Hesel-
ton of Gardiner and Leroy T. Carleton
of Winthrop.
The argume nts in the Ellsworth fire
cases against the Maine Central Rail-
road, which were begun at the after
non session Thursday, We're completed
early in the forenoon and another Han
cock county case, that of Leighton
admr. VS.. Wheeler, was argued. This
is personal damage action against the
Maine Central Railroad. A section
hand employed by the railroad COM
pany was found lying across the
Maine Central Railroad tracks and was
run over by Bar Harbor train. Suit
was brought by the administrator of
the estate against the engineer in
charge Of the train, which ran over
the section hand and verdict of $1,000
damage rendered. The case came up
on motion for a new trial and one of
the questions involved was whether or
not the section hand was dead before
the train passed over him. D. E. Hur-
ley for plaintiff; Hale & Hamlin for
defendant.
A good number of the members of
the Kennebec bar from Augusta and
Waterville were present during the
calling of the Kennebec county dock
ct, which consumed about three-quar-
ters of an hour at the opening of the
afternoon session. The first case from
this county to be argued was that of
Lancaster VS.. Augusta Water District.
This is writ of entry brought by
Mary 1. Lancaster trustee, against the
Augusta Water District, involving the
taking of land in Winthrop in the vi
entity of Carleton pond by the Water
District for the construction of dam
and the laying of pipe line. The
plaintiff claims that she was lawful
ly in possession of parcel of land in
the town Of Winthrop, which was I'M
lawfully entered into by the Water Co.
an6 asks damages in the sum of 5000.
The defendant denies that entry was
made in any wrongful manner. The
case was heard at the term of the Ken
nebec county supreme court in October,
1905 and the jury was directed to re-
turn the following verdict:
"The jury finds that the defendant
this land described in her writ and not
disclaimed by the defendant, but finds
that she holds the fee in said land sub
ject to the easement therein in favor of
the deft ndant and the right to the ac
tual possession thereof created by the
taking of the defendant under the right
of eminent domain as set forth in it's
brief statement OF defence" The
plaintiff objected to the direction of
this verdict and the case comes to the
law court on plaintiffs exceptions.
Benedict F. Maher for plaintiff; Her
bert M. Heath for defendant.
The next case to be heard was that
of Oakland Electric Co. VS. The Union
Gas Co. This is an action of covenant
broken, which comes up on report. The
plaintiff had an electric business
which had been established and in OPP
GRAFTON in the town of Oakland for
more than 10 wears and was without a
generating plant. The defendant had a
large new generating plant in Water
vile and practically no business. The
contract provided that for term of
three years during which time the
pIantiH was providing itself with a
new power station defendant should
supply the plaintiff a small part of it's
water and surplus power. Between the
making and the alleged breaking of
the contract changes occurred, which
made the parties hostile to each 9TH
err and it is claimed by the plaintiff
that the hostility between the parties
was the actual reason for the refusal
to continue the performance of the
contract.
The defence claims that the coven-
ants declared upon by the plaintiff
We're beyond the powers of the defend
ant corporation given by it's charter,
and that the defendant corporation
had no right or authority to generate
or transmit power in the town of oak
land. Harvey D. Eaton for plaintiff.
Charles F. Johnson and Dennis E.
Bowman for defendant.
The arguing of Kennebec county
cases, of which there are five or six
more will consume the entire day to-
day
nCh ut. 1on Sx,-ip