Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1917-12-14
LAW COURT
Five Cases Are Argued
on Thursday
Question Of Constitutionaity Of Sect.
80 Of Chap. As, Revised Statutes, An
Issue in a Hancock Case

Statutes relating to the requirements for
a license to ship Holsters outside Of the
State of Maine, was the issue in the
Hancock county case State VS.. Charles =.
Dodge. which was argued at Thursdays
session of the law court. This was 4
criminal prosecution for the transporta-
ton Of Holsters beyond the limits Of the
state without license. +. L. Mason Of
Ellsworth, county attorney Of Hancock
county, argued for the State and Herbert
/ T.. Locke of Augusta for the defendant.
/ The case came up on report on an
agreed statement Of facts, the sole Ques-
ton being the consttutionality of the
section mentioned before. Section 90 pro
vides i'll substance that no person shall
acquire any property in Holsters caught
in the State unless they conform to the
+ law and are shipped in accordance with
SECT. 30 The latter section provides in
substance that except in case OF shin
ment by common carries. for which lro-
vision in made in other sections OF the
chapter any person transporting lobs.-Is
20 point outside of the State must htr.
a license. Among other conditions to he
issuing Of the license it is provided ;,at
the fee shall be s.. that the applicant shall
: nv Il l'Cilhi pOiit al the SUN OF SbJ, Wll'l
bond shall be forfeited in full upon tn:
violation by the applicant of any lay
of the State relating TO Holsters and that
the license shall be void upon the breach
Of any law OF the State regarding lob
Sters.
The fee for holding and transporting
Holsters within the State is 81 and the
penalty for possession of a short lobster
held to be transported to point withia
the State is ST.
mis- law was passed in 1915 and has
peeh the subject of controversy between
! the commissioner of sea and shore fish
erles and the owners of smacks coming
from outside the State to purchase lob
sters, the owners Of smacks contending
ti'at II amounts to a virtual prohibition
4 OF their doine business in the state
ne uefense in the action claimed the
Jaw Is not constitutional and the four H.
i sues IN the defendants brief were.
"He1heF or not the statute is a regulation
Vi interstate commerce; .. whether or moi
the uStrlmlpation in the license fee is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, requiring 81 for lob
9t'i9 Hela LOT sale in the State of Maine
an" Il zee OF 80 for Holsters to be, Skinned
ou'Nlue the state; 3, whether or not the
4 Pe'''lts OF *Sel Tor the possession of a
eiiorI lobster to be shipped outside of the
.ot"'e Is discriminatory, it being only 81
ior the possession of a short lobster >,
10 Shipped TO point within the State
! "hether or not the penalty of s5p, fo
possession OF a short lobster is evcass;,,,
III we" OF the nature of the orense
| The counsel for the State ,r,r,o,,
J OILY upon the
! coihlhefce-that this was NOT = vio1n
! W Interstate commerce because
! lhe state owned the Holsters q, on,
"a" ana me Holsters are never
privately owned until the statute bas
! been complied with.
| Another Hancock Case
| ne only other case from Hancock
! '"un'H argued at the session was that
81 o'"'e VS.. Robert II. Bennett. a com
/ piaiht Tor indecent exposure, origin
! "'l'i7 IN t'le Ellsworth municipal
! '""' I l. i. DeaSN of Bar Harbor
! IfSueo Tor the State and no attor-
Fe| appeared for the defendant
kennebec Case
| 'HlE one kennebec county case was
| argued, that of Anton Iubin ar E,air-
| neid VS.. the Benton & Fairfield Poll
| way, q personal injury suit which was
lleu last June at the Kennebec s,1
| pc'l"I ocut' rthe Jury returning a YER
| "ict lor the plaintiff of S65S333 The
ease comes to the law court on mo-
| H"ii iof new trial in the usual form
! ana upon exceptions to the refusal If
| lhe presiding judge to direct a verdict
| lof the defendant Harold +. Weeks
81 lhe ffm OF Weeks & Weeks Of Fair
held argued for the plaintiff and Jar-
| bert j.. Locke of Augusta for +be ~
| PENDANT
| The accident occurred .I,,,v ,at-
| The plaintiff was in the emnloy os III
I defendant company and was ipi,,r,,4
| bE being caught between two care of
! me oelehdant at Fairfield on the
Name Central siding, which siding be-
| 'ohEeo 10 the United Paper Board Co.
Knox Gases
| TWO Knox county cases were arpued
during the afternoon. the first haino
! that of Frank p. ]. Carleton ct ale
Us. Camden Anchor Rockland Ma
chime CO. This is an action to recover
| damages sustained by the plaintiffs NV
! reason of the placing of flush boards
| on the defendants dam at the lower
| falls of the Megunticook river in Cam
| den. At the trial the verdict of mo
| Jury was for the plaintiff for s5Os q
| Inc case is before the law court IN
| motion for new trial by the defend
ant. A. S. Littlefield of Rockland ar
| Sued for the plaintiffs and J. Fl. Mont
/ @"mery Of Camden for the defendant
fne other Knox case was that If
! E;ockland & Rockport Lime Co. vs.
| Mortimer Co. This is an action W
| recover for damages occasioned by one
of the plaintiffs barges settling upon
| the rocks al the berth of the defend
| ant company in Belfast. for which
| $1,000 is elaine in damages. The YER
| dict Of the jury at the trial was for
| the defendant and the case is before
| the law court on motion for A new
| trial by the plaintiff A. S. Little
| field Of Rockland argued for the plain
| tiff and Alan L. Bird Of Rockland for
| the defendant
The Telephone Outlook