Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-01-28
SUPERIOR COURT
Verdict Set Aside in the Case
of House VS. House and a
New Trial Granted

The verdict was set aside and new
trial granted by Judge Beane in the
House VS.. House case as a result of a
hearing held before the judge at the
Wednesday session of the superior
court. 1t was claimed by L. T. Garlic
ton, attorney for the defendant. who
moved for a new trial, that the YER
dict was contrary to the evidence.
was miscarriage Of justice and that
the jury had been influenced to a
greater or less extent by remarks
made by William r. Downes Of Win
throp, a witness for the plaintiff. who
went two or three times into the jury
room with the jurors.
The case in question was that in
which Sumner House of Wayne
brought an act of trover against Mrs.
Catherine House of Winthrop for the
recovery of the value of horse, which
the plaintiff claimed was given to
him by the defendant on condition
that he would bury the animal when
he was through with it. The defend
ant came one day and took the horse
as if going for a ride. and shortly aft
err had the horse put to death, for
=
jury had rendered verdict in favor Of
the plaintiff for s25.
At Wednesdays hearing Ellsworth
F.. Peacock Of Readfield appeared for
the plaintiff and L. T. Carleton of
Winthrop for the defendant.
According to testimony of several Of
the Jurors. MIR. Downes of Winthrop
a witness for the plaintiff, had been
two or three times into the jury room
about the time Of that trial, and while
he said nothing directly pertaining to
the case he did say things against the
lawyer for the defendant. l.. T. Garlic
ton Of Winthrop. And after Mr..
Downes had been in a closet adjoin-
ing the jury room, a liquor bottle was
taken out of the closet.
Deputy Sheriff Fred f. Blake Of Sid
ney testified that he had called two
stated that he thought that he told
Downes to get out of the room.
L. T. Carleton, attorney for the de-
PENDANT, then presented his motion in
full that the verdict be set aside and
a new trial be ordered. He stated that
he considered the verdict a miscar-
riage Of justice and a farce in view
OF the evidence The jury was not to
blame: no fault could be found with
the intellect Of the jurors. One thing
to which he attributed this verdict
was the fact that he jury were prob
ably biased against the attorney for
the defendant on account OF remarks
made against Mr.. Carleton by Mr..
Downes Of Winthrop, who was with
the jurors in their room. He then
turned to the case IN question and
reviewed the evidence, stating that
the vital thing was whether or not
there was a gift. He thought the jury
might have been confused and preju-
diced because the defendant did not
go and get the horse in a free and
open manner. He stated that evidently
the plaintiff did not expect to have
the horse returned because he said
to the defendant when she took the
horse, "if yeu take the horse you will
have to pay for its board and the
said, II can If have to-"
Mr.. Peacock Of Readfield, attorney
for the plaintiff, stated that the jury
which rendered the verdict was made
up Of IL as good men as there are in
the county, and while it was true that
Mr.. Downes went into the jury room,
be did not talk about the case in Ques-