Atwood v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1910
• Citation: 106 Me. 539,76 A. 949
• Parties: ATWOOD et al. v. NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

76 A. 949

106 Me. 539

ATWOOD et al.

v. NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

June 29, 1910.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Penobscot County.

Action of trespass quare clausum, by Maria L. Atwood against the New England Telephone & Telegraph Company, under Rev. St. c. 97, § 11, for entering upon ornamental grounds of the plaintiffs and cutting down and removing therefrom, without permission of the owners, certain ornamental trees, and lopping, trimming, and otherwise defacing certain other ornamental trees thereon standing. Plea, the general issue, with brief statement as follows: "That the close described in the plaintiffs' writ was within the limits of a public highway in said town of Hampden, and that any entries made by the defendant were made with the authority, permission, and supervision of the selectmen of said Hampden, and any acts committed by it were committed under legal authority so to do." Verdict for plaintiffs for $135, with the following special finding: "Do the jury find that the plaintiffs' land, upon which the alleged trespass was committed, was either grass land or ornamental ground?" Answer: "Ornamental." The verdict, in accordance with the instructions of the presiding justice, was for the actual damages, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment for three times the actual damages found by the jury. This motion was overruled, and the plaintiffs excepted. Dismissed.

Argued before EMERY, C. J., and PEABODY, CORNISH, KING, and BIRD, JJ.

Mayo & Snare, for plaintiffs.

Norman L. Bassett, for defendant.

EMERY, C. J. The action was trespass q. c. for entering plaintiffs' close and cutting down trees thereon. After verdict for the plaintiffs for actual damages as instructed by the court, the plaintiffs moved for judgment for three times the amount of the actual damages. The court denied the motion, and the plaintiffs excepted. The bill of exceptions allowed by the presiding justice and presented to the law court made "the evidence introduced at the trial, including the plans and photographs exhibited," a part of the bill. The evidence, plans, and photographs thus made a part of the bill were not filed, and were not produced at the law court, whereupon the defendant moved the law court to dismiss the exceptions.

The plaintiffs claim that the remainder of the bill, without the evidence, plans, or photographs, contain enough to enable the law court to determine...