Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-10-16

dent within thirty days thereafter.
| This is a finding of fact, conclusive
| if the record discloses any evidence
| to sustain it. There is evidence that
| the employer had knowledge of the
! accident at the very time of its occur
renee. That 1T was not then regard
ed of consequence is immaterial.
| This injury became compensate
December Is, 1924, which Is the date
recognized in the award for the COM
pensation to begin. The claim for
compensation was filed December 10,
1925, which is within the year from
the incapacity. When the workman's
wages, earnings or salary are lost or
reduced by reason Of an industrial
accident he becames in theory of law
incapacitated. Then he Is entitled to
claim compensation. Then the year
! given for making claim begins to run
Hustus Case, 123 Maine, 42S.
Appeal dismissed.
Decree below affirmed
Knox County Case
The motion for a new trial in the
Knox county case of Lettie Lewis VS.
Daniel Bowie which is an action to
recover for services rendered, was
overruled in another rescript per cur
lam which was recently received. This
rescript follows:
An action to recover for services
rendered The amount claimed was
six hundred and ninety dollars. The
jury gave a verdict for fifteen dollars
and fifty cents. The case is before
! this Court on a motion for a new
trial on the usual grounds.
The issues raised were solely uues-
! iSr. 49, -
conflicting. The jury evidently ac-
cepted the defendants version, and
awarded the plaintiff a sum equal to
five dollars per week for the last
three weeks she worked for the de-
! PENDANT, with interest Plaintiffs
contention is that damages are in
adequate.
If the defendants testimony was
accepted by the jury, the verdict was
sufficient. This Court can not say
from the printed case that the jury
was clearly wrong in accepting the
testimony of the defendant as true
and rejecting that of the plaintiff.
Motion Overruled.
Overrules Exceptions
In the Oxford county case Of
State of Maine VS.. Caspart Cohen
a rescript drawn by Chief Justice
Wilson affirms the judgment for the
State. This rescript reads:
A bill of exceptions should sue.
cinctly state the issue and the rul.
ing of Court excepted and contain
| by reference or otherwise, sufficien,
to show wherein the excepting party
was aggrieved.
A plea of former jeopardy should
be met by the State by a demurrer
or replication, in the first instance
raising a question of law, and ir
the latter an issue of fact which
must be submitted to jury.
The case at bar does not show the
nature of the reply by the State tc
the respondents plea or whether ar
issue of fact or law was presented
nor whether upon the overruling OF
the motion any or what judgment
was entered. Exceptions will be sus-
tanned only when it appears from
the exceptions themselves that the
Court mistook the law.
A plea of former Jeopardy being
in the nature of a dilatory plea, the
case should have gone to final judg-
ment before being brought to the
Law Court on exceptions. The re-
spondent. however, having brought
his exceptions to this Court with
out pleading over, must be deemed
to have waived his right to answer
further, and the judgment here is
! final.
Exceptions overruled.
! Judgment for the State.