Megquier v. DeWeaver
Decision Date | 23 July 1942 |
Citation | 27 A.2d 399 |
Parties | MEGQUIER v. DeWEAVER (two cases). |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
On Exceptions and Motion for New Trial from Superior Court, Aroostook County; George L. Emery, Presiding Justice.
Actions by Arthur M. S. Megquier against James DeWeaver and by Harold A. Megquier, an infant who sues this action by Arthur M. S. Megquier, his father and next friend, against James DeWeaver, to recover for loss of services of the infant and for expenses incurred for medical and surgical treatment, hospitalization and nursing, and by the infant for injuries sustained in an alleged assault. On defendant's exceptions and motions for new trials.
Motions sustained, and new trials granted.
Before STURGIS, C. J, and THAXTER, HUDSON, MANSER, WORSTER, and MURCHIE, JJ.
George B. Barnes, of Houlton, for plaintiff.
Nathan H. Solman and Archibald & Archibald, all of Houlton, and Cook, Hutchinson, Pierce & Connell, of Portland, for defendant.
There are before us here two actions, one brought by a minor, Harold A. Megquier, through his father as next friend, the other by the father to recover for loss of services of his son and for expenses incurred for medical and surgical treatment, hospitalization and nursing. The declaration in each case charges the defendant with an assault on the boy which resulted in injuries.
The defendant in September, 1940, when the assault is alleged to have taken place, was Superintendent of Schools of Weston and certain nearby towns. The minor child was a pupil in the Webster School situated in Weston. The boy had had some difficulty with his teacher, Mrs. Gillis, and the assault is alleged to have taken place while the boy, Mrs. Gillis, and the defendant were together in a room in the schoolhouse apparently discussing this trouble.
The evidence is sharply conflicting. Particularly is this true of the testimony of the boy on the one hand, and of the defendant and Mrs. Gillis on the other. The boy says that when he did not raise his head when requested to do so, the defendant forcibly forced his head back over a seat causing injury to the muscles Of his neck. Both the defendant and Mrs. Gillis deny that any force was used. To sift the truth from contradictory evidence in a case of this kind requires an impartial approach and discriminating judgment on the part of a jury. Especially is it important that they should be left free from any suggestion by court or counsel which would lead them to substitute...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Werner v. Lane
...fair trial to which under the law he was entitled, the Law Court did not hesitate to sustain a motion for a new trial. Megguier v. DeWeaver, 139 Me. 95, 27 A.2d 399 (1942); Simonds v. Maine Telephone & Telegraph Co., 104 Me. 440, 72 A. 175 (1908); Pierce v. Rodliff, 95 Me. 346, 50 A. 32 (19......
-
Horner v. Flynn
...Mosley, 133 Me. 168, 175 A. 307; Trenton v. Brewer, 134 Me. 295, 186 A. 612; Springer v. Barnes, 137 Me. 17, 14 A.2d 503; Megquier v. DeWeaver, 139 Me. 95, 27 A.2d 399, and Cox v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 139 Me. 167, 28 A.2d 'Such review, however, is not compatible with best practice, a......
-
State v. Smith.
...Mosley, 133 Me. 168, 175 A. 307; Trenton v. Brewer, 134 Me. 295, 186 A. 612; Springer v. Barnes, 137 Me. 17, 14 A.2d 503; Megquier v. DeWeaver, 139 Me. 95, 27 A.2d 399, and Cox v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 139 Me. 167, 28 A.2d 143. Such review, however, is not compatible with best practic......
-
State v. Hudon.
...A. 307; Inhabitants of Trenton v. City of Brewer, 134 Me. 295, 186 A. 612; Springer v. Barnes, 137 Me. 17, 14 A.2d 503; Megquier v. DeWeaver, 139 Me. 95, 27 A.2d 399; Cox v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 139 Me. 167, 28 A.2d 143. However, such review is not compatible with good practise and h......