Case Name: Henry M. Prentiss et al. vs. County Commissioners of Aroostook County
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1874
Citations: 63 Me. 569
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry M. Prentiss et al. vs. County Commissioners of Aroostook County.
Judges: Appleton, C. J., Cutting, Walton, Barrows and Danforth, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 569–570

Head Matter:
Henry M. Prentiss et al. vs. County Commissioners of Aroostook County.
Appeal from County Commissioners. B. S., c. 18, §§ 35, 37.
An appeal from the decision of county commissioners refusing to discontinue a road laid out in an unincorporated township must he heard by the presiding judge, as provided in E. S., c. 18, § 35, and not by a committee as provided in § 37, and following sections.
On exceptions.
The county commissioners of this county on November 23, 1870, on petition of Caldwell et als., laid out a certain road, commencing in Macwahoe plantation and running through certain other unincorporated plantations to the mills in the town of Sherman. Proceedings were closed at their July term, 1871. At January term, 1873, B. P. Coburn et als., petitioned to have the road discontinued. Notice was ordered, and at the June term, 1873, the commissioners refused to discontinue. Prom this decision on the sixth of September, 1873, the appellants filed an appeal, and duly entered the same at the next term of the supreme judicial court, September, 1873. At that term this appeal was called up. The appellants contended the proceedings were governed by R. S., c. 18, §§ 37, 38, 39, and the respondents that the appeal must be heard at that term by the presiding judge, agree ably to § 35 of tbe same chapter. The presiding judge at that term stated to counsel that his attention had been called before to what seemed to be a conflict or want of clearness in these different sections, — that perhaps new legislation was needed, and suggested that the parties await such legislation or else report the case to the full court for the instruction to be given them. The case was thereupon continued to the present term against the will of the respondents.
The presiding judge at this term ruled, as a matter of law, that the appeal was properly cognizable at the previous term, and should then and there have been heard and tried as provided in § 35, but for the order of the justice then presiding, and that §§ 37, 38 and 39 were not applicable to the case.
The appellants, not being ready for trial at this term, filed a motion for continuance alleging the foregoing facts and other reasons, which was overruled.
The presiding judge thereupon ordered, as matter of law, that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution.
To which ruling and order the appellants excepted.
G. H. Herrin, for appellants.
Hobinson & Hutchinson, and JDonworth, for appellees.

Opinion:
Peters, J.
There is no merit in these exceptions. The case was cognizable by the court under E. S., c. 18, § 35. That section is made expressly applicable to "ways in places not incorporated." Section 37 refers to ways in incorporated places. This is made, perhaps, clearer than before, by Public Laws of 1874, c. 263. But without the aid of this act, such must be the proper construction of the sections referred to.
Exceptions overruled.
Appleton, C. J., Cutting, Walton, Barrows and Danforth, JJ., concurred.