Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-10-09

iN IHnEE nEOUnl[ ID
FROM THE LAW COURT
The exceptions Of the petitioner
Archie French, in the case against
Henry F. Cummings, at that time
sheriff of Kennebec County, and
| which was taken to the law court
after hearing on a writ of habeas
| corpus, We're not properly before the
law court and were accordingly dis
missed according to a Kennebec
County rescript per curiam which
has recently been handed down. The
rescript reads as follows:
This case is submitted upon ex-
ceptionS to an order of the Justice
of the Superior Court of Kennebec
County discharging, upon a writ OF
habeas corpus, the petitioner, COM
mltted to Jail upon an execution is
sued to enforce a decree of divorce,
ordering the petitioner to make pay
ments for the support Of his minor
child.
The exceptions are not properly
before us. 1t is we'll settled prin-
ciple that exceptions do not lie to
the discharge of a prisoner upon ha-
beas corpus. ,Knowlton, Petr. VS..
Baker, 70 Maine, POP. Stuart VS..
Smith, 101 Maine, 397.
Exceptions dismissed.
In an Aroostook County case
wherein at a hearing upon the petit
ton of a suspended attorney at law
the presiding judge reported the evil
dence to the law court for determi-
nation 1t is ruled that as no question
of law arises in the case the report
must be dismissed and the case re-
manded to the court below for fur
Their proceedings. This is the case
of Adolphus S. Crawford, Jr., VS..
Peter c. Kegan ct ais, Committee of
the Aroostook Bar, and the rescript
per curiam reads as follows:
The petitioner was suspended as
an attorney at law and solicitor in
chancery in the courts of this State.
He now petitions for reinstatement.
AT the hearing the presiding justice
reported the evidence TO this Court
for determination, whether If the
bar against the petitioner in the ca
pacity of an attorney and counsellor
at law were lifted it would prob
ably be promotive of the right ad-
ministration of justice"
The Law Court of this State de-
rives its powers from statute, and
its jurisdiction is limited to the cases
therein enumerated. Consideration
upon report of this petition is not
included.
Whether or not disbarred attor-
ney shall be reinstated rests in the
sound discretion of the justice hear
ing the petition. As no question of
law arises in the case reserved for
the determination of this Court, the
report must be dismissed and the
case remanded to the court below
for further proceedings.
Report dismissed.
Case remanded to the court be-
low for further proceedings.
A motion for a new trial on the
grounds of newly discovered evil
dence in the Cumberland County
cases of Edward ]. Regain VS.. Carter
and MiIeson and James Regain, pro
ami VS.. the same company. is over
ruled. the law court ruling that from
the nature Of the evidence it is quite
evident that by the exercise OF rea-
sonable diligence this testimony
could have been discovered in sea-
son for use at the trial. The re-
script per curiam recently handed
down and ruling in this case Is as
follows:
These cases are presented upon
motions by defendant corporation
for new trials on the ground OF
newly discovered evidence. The trlai
at nisi prius. the actions being tried
together. began on October -, 1872
the motion is dated November "a
1925. .
ITpon examination of the testimony
taken in support of the notion IN
connection with the evidence pre-
sented at the trial, it is very evident
that by the exercise of reasonable
diligence the testimony now orered
could have been discovered in season
for use at the trial. For that rea-
son, in accordance with we'll estab-
lished practice, the motion must be
overruled Woods VS.. Jordan o.
Maine. 400 495, Cobb VS.. Cogswell,
III Maine 3S6. $40. smith VS.. Booth
Brothers, 112 Maine 297, 301.
The actions are based upon the al
legged negligence of one Murray, who
while driving defendants truck
struck and injured the minor plain
tiff. The defendant denied that Muir
raw was in its employ at the time of
the accident. or that he was negli-
gent. The witness, Bjorn, whose
testimony is now offered, was en-
ployed in the garage where defend
ant kept its trucks. and continued
there for about two months after the
accident; he was acquainted with
Murray Carter, and Mileson. and
was available at all times. He was
driving short distance behind the
truck when the boy was struck;
Murray and a bystander picked up
the boy and put him into Bjorn's
car; the latter took him to the hos
pital The accident happened about
noon; during the afternoon Of the
same day Murray came to the gar
age and inquired Of witness whether
he saw how the accident happened.
and was told that he did. If defend
ant actually relied upon the defense
Of want of negligence by Murray,
this evidence was at hand. and the