Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-03-09

cSDtlOn IN the body OF the bill itself.
3. Letters and kilograms sent in the
general course Of business by one party
to suit to the other, which by the char
acter Of their contents are naturally cal
culated 10 elicit replies and denials are
admissible in evidence. although they
are self serving, and are not answered
4. A broker has earned his commits
sions for the sale Of goods, when he has
produced a customer WHO is ready and
willing TO buy on the sellers terms. and
is able to pay.
5. In suit by a broker to recover
commissions, It appeared that the de-
PENDANT offered for sale fancy packed
corn; that the plaintiff produced a Gus
TONER ready and willing TO buy fancy"
packed corn. and able To pay for it; that
the corn offered was not fancy and
that for that reason the customer re-
fused 10 take 1t.
Held. that the verdict for the defend
ant was Enthusiastically wrong
Exceptions sustained.
Motion for a new trial sustained
National Furniture Co. V. Inhabitants
OF Cumberland County.
Hanson, ].
This is an action for breach of the
covenant OF quiet enjoyment expressed
and implied in q lease between the par
ties dated Jan. l. 1872 At the trial the
presiding justice on motion directed a
verdict for the defendant. and the case
is before the court on the plaintiffs ex-
ceItion to that ruling.
Held,
]. II is the opinion of the court that
the ruling OF the presiding justice was
correct. The case is not doubtful The
evidence would not have warranted
verdict for the plaintiff and there was no
evidence from which different conclu-
sions might be drawn by different minds.
.. Breach of a covenant for quiet EN-
joyment is the basis of the action. In
resorting to this form Of action. we think
the plaintiff has mistaken his remedy, If
he was damaged by the act of the de-
PENDANT. for q covenant for quiet enjoy
ment in a lease is broken only by an
eviction.
8 The lease made provision for the
entry of the county commissioners for
making repairs and improvements and
the performance of any other duties
required of them by virtue of their Of
fee, and for abatement Of rent during
any suspension Of the plaintiffs occu-
pancy." These provisions Were known
10 both parties, the likelihood of their
exercise must be held 10 have been in
the contemplation Of both at the date
OF the execution of the lease. The con-
slruction of the lease was for the court
eviction, one must be actually dispos-
sessed by one having the real title, or
one under q paramount title. An evic-
ton is not mere trespass and nothing
more. but something Of a grave and per-
rnanent character done by the landlord
for the purpose and with the intention Of
depriving the tenant Of the demised
premises Every eviction includes an
custer, either Of the whole or some part
of the delnised premises, and may be ac-
com plished by the wrongful acts Of the
lessor depriving the lessee Of the hene-
fetal enjoyment Of the premises, and the
lessee in consequence abandons the same.
Such wrongful acts amount in law TO an
eviction without other evidence that the
landlord intended TO deprive the tenant
of possession. But the mere fact that by
an act or default Of the landlord, not
unla wful in itself, nor accompanied with
any intention TO affect the enjoyment Of
the premises demised. they have been
rendered uninha bitable. is not sufficient
to constitute an eviction,
). The plaintiff did not abandon the
possession. The defendants acts We're
no, voluntary, but under stress of para
I erS% II =
to do the acts complained Of. and when
the necessity for such acts ceased, the
plaintiff resumed business.
| In view Of the undisputed facts, we
hold that the case fails to disclose any
OF the elements necessary to be shown
to constitute an eviction
Exceptions overruled-
Androscoeein County Case
Sarah C. Cover. appellant from de-
cree of judge Of probate,
| Hanson. j. This was a petition to the
probate court of Androscoggin county
asking for the appointment of ". H
Judkins as guardian of the appellant
Upon due notice and hearing thereon it
was decreed that w. II. Judkins be ap-
pointed guardian OF said Sarah c. Cow
er, and that letters Of guardianship issue
TO him"
From this decree an appeal was taken
TO the Supreme court Of probate Hear
ing was had on the appeal and the de-
cree was affirmed by the presiding Judge
The case is before the law court on ex-
ceptions to the ruling and respondents
counsel filed a motion for a new trial on
the ground that the decree is,
First, against the evidence.
Second, against law.
Held,
!. The presiding justice found that the
appellant was incompetent to manage
her estate and protect her rights. This
was a finding of fact, and not an infer
ence of law, and having ample evidence
to support it, such finding is conclusive.
. The findings Of the judge presiding
in the Supreme court Of probate in mat
tiers of fact are conclusive, If there is
any evidence to support them. And when
the faw invests him vita the power to
exercise his discretion, that exercise is
INIT re,-iaypa bie m eyeeDfiors ~ he and G