Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-03-18

itnmatcrial and that he could not he
Cross-eXamincd on subjects other than
those Ia which he testified on direct
examination.
Al the conclusion of ~" ter'i-
mony. the plaintiff moved that the
/ count dlrrct >erdlct Tor her on the
grounds set forth in exceptions mum
bered four and FIVE in the bill of cX-
ceptions, and that there being no eV-
| idcnJe 81 payment OF compensation for
the land taken. the right of possession.
if any which the defendant acquired
! by the filing OF the maps had lapsed:
| also that payment of compensation to
| the plaintif for the land in question
was a prerequisite to the vesting of
title To the lands in the defendant,
which motion was denied.
\. on the defendants motion thu
court directed the following verdict
The jury find that the defendant did
disscize the plaintiff of the fee IN the
| land described in her writ and not dis
claimed by the defendant, but fiud that
size holds TIE fee in said land. subject
to the easement therein i'll favor of the
defendant and the right To the actual
possession thereof created by the TAX
ing by the defendant under the right
OF eminent domain as set forth in its
brict statement of defence.
The first exception is to be deter
mined by the provisions OF Il. :. Chap
ter 81 Section "a, relating to plead
inL in civil actions. and the second
By the provisions of r. s. Chapter
1906. Section 6. giving the defendant
Il. n
ing by brief statement under the
general issue. The defendants plead
ing is within the procedure author
lied by these statutes.
The third exception is not available
10 the plaintiff, as leave to amend the
brief statement was discretionary with
the court. Rule V, Supreme and Judi
Cia court: Ministerial and School Fund
". Row ell. A. Me. $50.
The fourth exception involves the
coustitutionalitv of the legislative act
creating the defendant a public ser
vice corporation and authorizing it to
take private property for the purpose
of is business. by reason of the fail
ur" To provide for notice Of the con-
dcmndtion proceedings under which
tn" defendant claims an easement in
the premises. but only for those for
determining the compensation to be
paid.
The fifth exception raises the qucs-
ton ot insuficiency of notice. The
law which governs notice in eminent
domain proceedings recognizes equal
~ the right of lbe public and of the
owner. and the requirement % per-
| 80
case of the taking would be incXpe-
d.nut and unreasonable. The title
might lie undertain. the owners alb
| Sont, nGmrrouS or unknown. and their
| interests different. The constitutional
| requirement will be satisfied by giving
| Il reasonable notice. such as To afford
| the persons interested an opportunity
| to I've heard The owners are not IN
| titled to motto" or hearing upon the
| cXpediency or necessity of taking the
| property for public use. but after the
| seizure they are entitled to b" heard
upon all proceedings.
The taking of land for public use is a
proceeding in rem. the res being within
the Jurisdiction Of the State,
In all such cases it is enough if there
is such d notice as makes IT reasonably
certain that all persons interested who
easily can be reached will have infor-
nation of the proceedings, that there is
such a probability as reasonably can be-
provided for. that those at a distance
also may be informed. II is for The
Legislature, within proper limitations
to say what means of knowledge vii
be enough to put upon landowner tn,
duty to take measures to obtain hi.
compensation.
The Legislature may assume tina
tuersons whose lands are taken woul,
have such knowledge on the subject o
the taking that constructive notice b.
lnling an instrument of taking in tn
registry of deeds would be all that i
requisite.
Plans were filed in accordance Wit
the Act of 1905, Chapter 4. Section
: in the county commissioners office.
They became matters of record an
as such records. they were construcu'
notice which was sufficient notice
their subject matter to all persons In
terested.
!. 1t was a compliance also with tt
requirements of the general law appl
cable to such taking. Public Law
1905. Chapter 164. 1t is objected to IN
sufticiency of these records that tn
\ land was not described with the &C
curacy required by law. The rule fo
determining this is that the descriI
ticn must be such that the owner
: not thereby deceived as to what land