Bellows v. Murray

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Bellows v. Murray

66 Me. 199, 1877 Me. LEXIS 130

DecidedJanuary 11, 1877

StatusPublished

This text of 66 Me. 199 (Bellows v. Murray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bellows v. Murray, 66 Me. 199, 1877 Me. LEXIS 130 (Me. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Appleton, C. J.

This case comes before us on appeal. The defendant pleaded in abatement the interest of the magistrate before whom the writ was returnable, which was traversed by the’ plaintiff in his replication. Judgment was rendered for the defendant from which the plaintiff appealed.

[202]*202At nisi prius, on appeal, no evidence was offered. The defendant had alleged by his plea, the interest of the magistrate, before whom the writ was returned. The burden was on him to show the existence of this alleged interest. In the entire absence of proof on the subject, it was not for the court to presume its existence. It was not proved by the mere fact of the defendants having filed a plea alleging it did exist. Exceptions overruled.

Walton, DioKerson, Barrows, Yiegin and Petees, JJ.,. concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appleton, C. J.

This case comes before us on appeal. The defendant pleaded in abatement the interest of the magistrate before whom the writ was returnable, which was traversed by the’ plaintiff in his replication. Judgment was rendered for the defendant from which the plaintiff appealed.

[202]*202At nisi prius, on appeal, no evidence was offered. The defendant had alleged by his plea, the interest of the magistrate, before whom the writ was returned. The burden was on him to show the existence of this alleged interest. In the entire absence of proof on the subject, it was not for the court to presume its existence. It was not proved by the mere fact of the defendants having filed a plea alleging it did exist. Exceptions overruled.

Walton, DioKerson, Barrows, Yiegin and Petees, JJ.,. concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 Me. 199, 1877 Me. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellows-v-murray-me-1877.