Case Name: John Doyle, appellant, vs. Maine Shore Line Railroad Company
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1888-02-01
Citations: 80 Me. 136
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Doyle, appellant, vs. Maine Shore Line Railroad Company.
Judges: Peters, C. J., Virgin, Libbey, Foster and Haskell, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 136–137

Head Matter:
John Doyle, appellant, vs. Maine Shore Line Railroad Company.
Hancock.
Opinion February 1, 1888.
New trial.
It is not within the province of the court to say that the jury acted corruptly or perversely, or erroneously, in relying upon the uncontradicted testimony of respectable men, experienced in the matter about which they were testifying.
On motion of the defendant to set aside the verdict and for new trial.
John B. Redman, for the plaintiff.
Hale and Hamlin, for defendant.
The verdict in this case was absurd and outrageous. The jury were misled, prejudiced and improperly influenced by testimony. Otherwise they could not have found such a verdict. Newton v. Newbegin, 43 Maine, 293; Kimball v. Bath, 38 Maine, 219: Oyr v. Dufour, 62 Maine, 20; Thompson v. Massey, 3 Maine, 305; Williams v. Gilman, 3 Maine, 276; Jacobs v. Bangor, 16 Maine, 187 ; Gilbert v. Woodbury, 22 Maine,'246 ; Butler v. Bangor, 67 Maine, 385 ; Hobbs y. JE. R. R. Oo. 66 Maine, 572 ; Gleason v. Bremen, 50 Maine,.222 ; Jewell v. Gage, 42 Maine, 247.

Opinion:
Walton, J.
Proceedings to ascertain the damage done to the plaintiff's land by the location of the defendants' railroad across it. The jury assessed the damage at one thousand two hundred and eighty-seven dollars and twenty-eight cents. The defendants claim that this amount is excessive, and move to have the verdict set aside and a new trial granted. We do not think the motion can be sustained. The evidence is uncontradicted, and, if believed, justifies the verdict. The witnesses were unimpeached, and they appear to have been respectable and experienced men. One of them had been for several years an assessor of Ellsworth, and was at the time of testifying its treasurer. We do not think it is within the province of the court to say that the jury acted corruptly, or perversely or erroneously, in relying upon the uncontradicted testimony of such witnesses.
Motion overruled.
Peters, C. J., Virgin, Libbey, Foster and Haskell, JJ., concurred.