Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-04-04

dicial Court, 1869, and was brought
to recover the sum of $14234 40 for per-
sonal services and expenses in rela-
ton to the valuation of the power of
the Edwards Manufacturing Company,
for use in the Edwards Manufacturing
Co. tax case, so called.
The services and expenses sued for
in this case were rendered and in
Cured in the months of October and
November 1906. Thus the account had
remained uradjusted almost three
years, when definite action was taken
by Mr.. Shedd to collect his account
against the City. At the time of his
employment a contract was made with
him by the representatives of the City,
whereby they agreed to pay him for
his services at the rate of fifty (50)
dollars per day. The controversy
oyer a settlement of his account grew
out of the fact that he had charged
for more time than the representative
of the City thought it was actually
necessary for him to put into the case
and that his account as made up in
cluded charge for services of an as
sstant, at the rate OF $4,000 a day.
An examination of this case led to
the inevitable conclusion that the city
had absolutely no legal or equitable
defense to this action.
The case was finally settled with the
full knowledge. approval and advice
of those who acted for the City in the
Edwards Manufacturing tax case
three years ago, and who originally
made the contract of employment with
CT al off nrf
and many consultations with attorneys
for Mr. Shedd by Mayor Johnson and
myself. we succeeded in getting the
account reduced from $l423.40 to
Sl25000. This action against the City
was thus adjusted by the payment OF
this amount, with interest and costs.
II the case had been tried in Court, l
am satisfied that Mr.. Shedd would
have recovered a verdict for the whole
amount claimed and for which he
brought suit.
The action Inhabitants of the Town
of New Sharon VS.. Inhabitants of the
CITY of Augusta was entered in the
Supreme Judicial Court, Franklin
County, at the September term, 1909,
and would have been tried at the
February term of Court at Farming
ton had it not been that f. f. Rich
ards, attorney for the plaintiff town.
had been and was too i'll to attend
t. the the trial of the case.
This suit against the city was
brought by the town of New Sharon
to enforce payment of the sum OF
$1l6.S2 for pauper supplies furnished
to George Taylor and wife during the
winter of 1909. 1t is not claimed by
the plaintiff town that George F. Tay-
lor had himself acquired legal pau
per settlement in Augusta, but that
he had derivative settlement in this
city through his father, Charles A.
Taylor That Charles A. Taylor ac-
uuired a Dauper settlement in Au-
gusta. from 1884 to 1890. I am salts
fed Since 1890, he has lived in Som
erset County and l am of the opinion
has acquired a legal settlement in the
Town of Bingham. If l am correct
in nv opinion thus formed on the facts
asce-tained by myself in conjunction
with the Overseer, OF the Poor, the
City of Augusta has perfect legal
defence to this case, which will have
to be tried or otherwise disposed of at
the May term of the Supreme Cpurt
at Pennington.
This is an important case, not on ac-
count of the amount of money in
volved, but for the reason that the
outcome of the litigation will deter
mine the pauper settlement of George
r. Taylor and his large family as we'll
as the settlement of Charles A. Tay-
lCr. .-ft
The action City of Augusta VS.. City
of Waterville which was entered in
the Superior Court at the September
term 1909, was brought to collect the
sum of $500 for pauper supplies fur
nished to one Peter Vigue, who had
a legal settlement in Waterville, but
was an alien, born in Canada. never
having been naturaliZed
The legislature of 1905 passed a law
known as the "Alien PauDer Law, be-
ing chapter 142 of the Public Laws of
1905" section /, which reads as fol-
lows:
1.-THE Revised Statutes shall not be
construed to make any town liable for
relief furnished to an alien or his fam
lily since said statutes went into eff
feet, but relief furnished any such
person shall be within the provisions
of section 13. of Chapter twenty
seven" 1t was for the construction of
this act and an Interpretation of it's
meaning that this case was brought.
The City of Waterville refused to
pay the account, for the recovery of
which the action was begun, claiming
that all alien paupers under the act
above referred to were State paupers,
and that supplies furnished TO them
by cities or towns. should be paid for
by the State. On the other hand the
State refused to pay the claim on
the ground that the Legislature Gid
not intend by the passage of the act
of 1905 to shift the burden of support
OF all alien paupers from the cities
and towns to the State, regardless OF
the fact whether they had gained
legal settlement in any city or town.
This case went to the Law Court on
an agreed statement of facts, and was
argued at the December Law term. l
argued the case for the City of Au-
gusta, end c. \. Perkins, City Soiic-
fny a IT,, Z hn