Inhabitants of Deer Isle v. Inhabitants of Winter Port

• Decision Date: 10 October 1894
• Citation: 87 Me. 37,32 A. 718
• Parties: INHABITANTS OF DEER ISLE v. INHABITANTS OF WINTER PORT.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

32 A. 718

87 Me. 37

INHABITANTS OF DEER ISLE

v. INHABITANTS OF WINTER PORT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Oct. 10, 1894.

(Official.)

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Hancock county.

Action by the inhabitants of Deer Isle against the inhabitants of Winterport. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.

This was an action of assumpsit to recover supplies furnished by the town of Deer Isle to a pauper whose settlement it claimed was in the town of Winterport. A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant moved for a new trial, and also had exceptions. The latter only were considered by the court

From the exceptions it appeared that there was evidence tending to show that the pauper, Weed, with his wife and infant child, was on the 10th day of September, 1889, residing in a rented tenement in the town of Winterport, known as the "Pendleton House"; that the rent was due and unpaid; that during that month he called on one Daniel O. Clement, then living within 50 feet of the tenement occupied as aforesaid, to help him move his furniture and household goods, then packed, out of the tenement into Clement's house and stable, in the same town, where the pauper had arranged with said Clement to have a part thereof stored for a short time, to wit, all of his furniture and goods except one bedstead and some small articles which he sold, one parlor stove, and all family clothing, which parlor stove, with the wife and child and the wife's and child's clothing, went with the wife and child about two or three weeks later to Deer Isle, the wife and child remaining at said Clement's that length of time, on account of the illness of the infant The pauper, the next morning after such removal into the Clement house, went to Bangor, to join the vessel on board of which he was serving as cook.

To prove the declarations of the pauper at the time of the breaking up and moving into the Clement house, defendant's counsel asked the pauper's wife the following question:

"Ques. What did your husband say his intention was at the time you packed up your clothing and the heater, and yourself and child and husband abandoned the Pendleton house?"

Also, for the same purpose, defendant's counsel asked the witness Daniel O. Clement the following questions:

"Ques. While you were there assisting Mr. Weed in moving his goods, did he state to you his purpose in breaking up housekeeping and storing his goods? Ans. I think he did, up near my house, near the pump.

"Ques. I will ask you what he did say?"

Both unanswered questions were objected to. and excluded, subject to exceptions.

There was evidence tending to show that at one time after leaving the Pendleton house, and while the pauper with his wife and child were stopping in Deer Isle, he went to Winterport, to the house of one Capt. John Philbrook, husband of his wife's sister, and returned the next day; that while there the witness John Stokell, whom the pauper owed a balance for some of the furniture still stored at Clement's, had a conversation with him.

To prove the declarations of the pauper, the defendant's counsel asked the witness John Stokell the following questions:

"Ques. Whether or not, when you had the conversation with Mr. Weed at the house of Captain Philbrook, he told you he was about to move his furniture anywhere? * * * Ans. Yes, sir; he did.

"Ques. Now, I ask you where he said he was going to move his furniture? (Excluded, subject to exception.)"

Defendant's counsel stated that the reason he (the pauper) did not move his goods from Winterport to Deer Isle was because the witness Stokell said, "Not till I am paid. (Excluded, subject to exception.)"

There was evidence tending to prove that, during the pauper's stay at Deer Isle, his wife, in his absence, took the child, and went to her sister's, Mrs. Philbrook's, in Winterport; that on the pauper's return to Deer Isle, a few days after, he went to Winterport, to take his wife and child back to Deer Isle, and did take them back, against the will of his wife; and that, while they were stopping at Deer Isle, they had conversations about going back to Winterport.

To prove the pauper's declarations, defendant's counsel asked the witness Sarah A. Weed the following questions:

"Ques. What was the nature of his insistence in compelling you to return to Deer Isle? (Objected to, and excluded, subject to exceptions, but the court admitted the fact of his insisting on her going back.)

"Ques. Whether or not, while you were at Deer Isle, between September, 1889, and June, 1890, you and he talked about going back to Winterport? Ans. We did.

"Ques. What did he say? (Objected to, and excluded, subject to exception.)

"Ques. Did he come there (Winterport) for the purpose of taking you back to Deer Isle? Ans. Yes.

"Ques. What did he say as an inducement or otherwise to have you go back? (Excluded, subject to exception.)

"Ques. Why did you go? Ans. He insisted upon me going.

"Ques. If he made any threats if you didn't go? (Objected to, and excluded.)

"Ques. What did he say? Were you willing to go? Ans. No, sir; I was not.

"Ques. What did he say if you didn't go? (Excluded, subject to exception; the fact having been testified to that he insisted, but the nature of the insistence excluded.)"

There was evidence tending to show that after the pauper's wife, with her child, had gone to Deer Isle, and while there, the pauper, on his return from the coasting trip, called at the house of Daniel O. Clement, in Winterport.

To prove the declarations of the pauper at that time, counsel for the defendant asked the witness Clement:

"Ques. What did he say to you, if anything, about where he was stopping or residing? (Excluded, subject to exception.)"

Also, to prove the declarations of the pauper while he was moving his goods from Clement's to another place in Winterport, for storage, his wife and child still being in Deer Isle, counsel for defendant asked the witness Howard Grant, the teamster:

"Ques. Whether or not during the act of loading or going from Mr. Clement's to Mr. Willey's store, he stated to you where the goods were eventually going? (Excluded, subject to exception.)

"Ques. Did he make any conversation about where he was living at that time? Ans. He did.

"Ques. Where did he say he was residing? (Excluded, subject to exception.)"

There was evidence by the plaintiff tending to show that the residence of the pauper and his wife at Deer Isle in 1889 and 1890 was as a visitor.

To prove the contrary, the defendant's counsel asked the pauper's wife:

"Ques. Whether or not it [referring to her going to Deer Isle from said Clement's house] was against your wish that you went? (Objected to, and excluded as immaterial.)"

Defendant's counsel: "I ask the question for the purpose of showing that this was not a visit on her part, that she went involuntarily."

Court: "On that view of it, perhaps it may be admissible. I exclude it on the ground that the husband has the control of the residence of the family, notwithstanding his wife's objection. I will admit it on that ground."

To all these rulings of the court the defendant excepted.

Elmer P. Spofford, for plaintiff.

T. W. Vose, for defendant.

EMERY, J. The original pauper settlement of the pauper, Eben S. Weed, when he came of...