Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-09-21

that he himself was not financially able
to take care of his father and mother
IL you find he was financially able that
would stop the case. If you find he was
not then you move on, and the next point
/ is the question of notice. If you find the
notice given was such as the defendants
claim here, that is the end Of the case;
! plaintiff cannot recover On the other
hand, If you find such a notice was given
as statute requires and as the plain
tiff testifies to. so they had full notice
of what he expected, and the condition,
and everything, then he would be enti-
| tied to recover for his necessary ex-
penses, such as you find them to be, con-
nected with the relief of his father
The first two questions presented to the
jury involved pure questions of fact The
jury found against the defendant upon
each question. careful reading of the
evidence does not reveal any such error
on the part of the jury as requires the in
reference of the court. The third con-
tention made be said to have presented
mixed question of law and fact. The
notice given by the plaintiff as the jury
found may be stated substantially as fol-
lows: 81 notified them (the overseers)
about the 5th of September, Mr.. Reynolds,
1 believe. I stated the condition of my
father, and told him was unable to sup
port him, and my father knew I was.
He told me that he would see Mr.. Baker,
another oyerseer, and see what could be
done; I waited another week and had
no reply, and I sent and see Mr.. Baker,
and see what could be done;I waited an
other week and l had no reply, and I
went and see Mr. Baker and I see Mr.
Reynolds. 1 told Mr.. Baker If he didn't
find some means of removing and sup
porting him l would have to see If I
could get my pay, never heard anything
more and I did Now 1 am unable to-"
This conversation was corroborated by
his wife.
AS a matter of law we think this notice
contained all the elements of information
required by the statute to be given to
the officers of the defendant town. Then
arises the question whether these ele-
ments were so clarly and expressly stat
ed as to bring the facts undertaken to
be expressed within the contemplation of
the statute. This, of course, was a ques-
ton of fact for the jury under all the
evidence in the case. 1t appears as a con-
eeded fact that L ]. Allen had, prior to
this notice, been a pauper upon the town
of Lubec for some eight or 10 years. 1t,
therefore. seemed incredible that the Sc
lectmen of the town with full knowledge
of this fact could have failed to fully
understand the full purport and meaning
of the above notice given them by the
plaintiff. While it was not logical nor
comprehensive. it yet must have been
sufficient to convey to the town officers.
to two of whom it was communicated.
at different times, that they were re-
quested to remove L. ]. Allen and take
care of him, or the plaintiff would ex-
pect them to pay him for his support
after the date OF the notice. At any rate
the jury found that the notice was suffi-
cient to convey this information, and we
are unable to discover any good reason
for disturbing their verdict upon this
question.
ldotien overruled
Received September 18th. 1914