Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-10-19
SUPREME COURT
Hall-McKenney Case Settled Out
Of COurt-Hearing Held
In Case of Rafter VS..
Me. Central r. r.

saturdays session or the supreme court
did not open until 1902 in the morning
The delay was explained by the an
nouncement of Justice Cornish to the
jury that 1t would undoubtedly be glad
to learn the case in which they were en-
gagged had been disposed of.
1t had been expected that the case
| would be resumed at the morning SEES
sion since, when court adjourned Friday
afternoon, the defence conducted by
Benedict Maher had just been opened and
only one witness, the defendant, had
| taken the stand. 1t involved a boundary
dispute between Messrs w. A. C. Hall
and Asa I. McKenney, both of Pittston,
in which the respondent found himself
arraigned in an action for deceit With
the aid of their respective attorneys, Mr..
Heselton and Mr.. Maher, the disputants
were able to reach an agreement salts
factory to each party and no further ac
ton will be taken. The jurors were dis
missed until Monday morning and at 1918
the morning session of court was adj
journed.
Court opened it's afternoon session at 2
o'clock. A hearing was conducted in
which Carroll n. Perkins submitted evil
dence in the form of three affidavits and
the testimony of two witnesses in sup
port of his motion, filed May 5. 1914, for
another trial of the case of James r.
Rafter of Randolph VS.. the Maine Cen
trail Railroad. The reason for Mr.. Per-
kins' motion is for alleged interest of one
of the Jurors in that trial. Exceptions to
the evidence submitted at the hearing
were filed by attorneys Maher and Judge
win C. Atkins of Gardiner on the con-
tention that the motion was not season
ably filed. The exceptions were allowed
by the court
The trial of Rafter VS.. Maine Central
Raialroad occurred in the March term of
the supreme court. 1t lasted three and
one-half days. The jury was closeted
for over four hours in deiberation. A
verdict for assessed damages amounting
to s15, 1929 was returned in favor of the
plaintiff.
The testimony of Saturday afternoons
hearing disclosed that F. A. Wright of
West Gardiner, who served as foreman
of the jury at that trial. had, previous
to the opening of the trial, written upon
piece of paper something which he set
as the amount OF the verdict which
would be returned. This paper he had
given to a Mr.. Wight upon the promise
of the latter that it should not be opened
until after the trial was ended. After
his assignment to jury service on the
case he returned for the paper and it was
given him, and he was told by its holder
that 1t had not been opened.
Mr.. Wright was called to the witness
stand by Mr. Atkins. His testimony was
in general in accord with that of the two
preceding witnesses. In describing the
incident of writing upon the paper he
said that it had been the agreement. as
he remembered it, that both he and Mr..
Wight should each mark what they
thought the verdict would be and that
neither OF the papers should be opened
asked by Mr.. Perkins why, after his Sc
lection to serve upon the jury. he had
gone to get the paper. He replied that
he had no particular reason for doing SO.
He denied that he had ever formed any
opinion concerning the case until after
he had heard the evidence.
He was then dismissed from the stand
by both attorneys but was asked by JUS
tice Cornish what he mad written upon
the paper in question. He answered
$1,000" In reply to Judge Atkins he stat
ed that he had never disclosed what was
on the paper until asked by the court.
The motion for new trial will go to
the law court for decision.
Court was adjourned at $50 until this
morning at $50.