Daily Kennebec journal., 1919-11-26
.RESCRIPTS

The following rescripts from the
law court were on Tuesday received
by Clerk Of Courts Charles w.
Jones of Kennebec county:
Knox county-Cora L. Kallock vs.
Mary Edward. Rescript, Cornish. c.
J.
The plaintiff brought this action to
recover damages from the defend
ant because Of her alleged aliena-
tion Of the affections Of the plain
tiff's husband. The defendant was
arrested on a capias writ and gave
a bail bond in the sum Of 5000, with
two sureties. The writ was entered
at the September term. 1913. Knox
county. and an attorney appeared
for the defendant at that term The
case was then continued to the jan
uary term, 1919. and again to the
April term, 1919, when trial was had
and a verdict rendered in favor OF
the plaintiff.
During the trial it appeared to
the utter surprise Of the plaintiff
that the defendant was a married
woman, Mrs. Mary L. Davis. and
that She had held herself out as
single woman on coming to Maine
from another state, in accordance
with prearranged plan with her
husband who in the meantime had
gone to Pennsylvania.
At the same term, after verdict
against her and before judgment, the
defendant filed a motion asking tnar
oh "a Nd hnr hos
be exonerated and discharged be-
canse she was a married woman and
under the statutes Of this State was
exempt from arrest The presiding
justice granted the motion "as
matter Of legal right" and to this
ruling exceptions were taken by the
plaintiff.
Held:
1. That exemption Of a married
r. s.. Chap. IS. Sec. 4.
2. That exemption from arrest is
personal privilege and as such may
be lost by either waiver or estoppel.
3. That under all the facts and
circumstances of this case the de-
fendant was equitably estopped from
claiming an exoneretur.
Exceptions sustained.
Oxford County-Mark Morrow VS..
Inhabitants of Norway Village Cor
poration. Rescript. Cornish, c. ].
On agreed statement. Plaintiff
brought a real action against the de-
PENDANTS at the May term, 1918, Ok
ford county, demanding against
the said defendants the possession Of
the lot of land in Norway Village
Corporation which is known as the
Fordyce McAllister place" etc. On
the second day Of the return term
the defendants filed a disclaimer of
the entire tract and Of all interest
therein. At the February term. 1919.
they hIed special demurrer to the
writ on the ground that the descrip-
ton Of the demanded premises was
not sufficiently definite and was not
so certain that seizing could be de-
livered to the sheriff without refer
ence to some description dehors the
writ.
Held:
l. The description is sufficiently
precise to meet the requirement spec-
ided in the demurrer. 1t is nor ex-
pected that the officer can identify
the premises any more than he could
identity a stranger whom he is de-
rected to arrest, without inquiry.
2. The true test Of clearness OF
description however is that stated
In the original statue, P. L. 1896
Chap. "a. Sec. II Of which r. s
Chap. 1e9. Sec. 21. IL . condensation.
viz: they shall be 30 defined and de-
scribed in the declaration that thu
defendant may know with reasonable
certainty what lands and tenements
are demanded"
3. Applying this criterion the de-
scription is adequate. The defend
ants have admitted the fact by filine
the disclaimer. They had NO aim
Guilty then in determining what
premises were demanded, but said
that they were not in possession OF
them and had no title or interest
therein.
Under the agreed statement the
entry viii be: u
Judgment for defendant with eost.