Ellsworth American

TOWN AND COUNTY MATTERS
Supreme Judicial Court.
DAVIS, J.
Thomas vs. Spofford and als. - Hinckley - Knowles & Robinson
Debt on a replevin bond for the return of a stock of goods attached by plaintiff as Deputy Sheriff, and was entered at the last term. The plaintiff had a motion for a continuance. The defendants had omitted to file a specification of defense 14 days before the sitting of the court as required by the statute of last Winter. No reason was given except an understanding among the Ellsworth lawyers that they would not require them of one another. Plaintiff's counsel had no knowledge of such an arrangement, and made no objection to its being filed, provided his claim was not prejudiced by it. The Judge remitted the specification to be filed without terms and the action marked for trial. When the case was called up the defendants remitted the motion for a continuance. It appeared by the plaintiff's affidavit, that the clerk, after the expiration of the time, informed his counsel that no specification had been filed - that his counsel then wrote to defendant's counsel proposing a reference, because there were a large number of articles, the value of which would have to be ascertained, and it, in his opinion, could be done more cheaply and satisfactorily in that manner, than by a jury - that by the course of mail he received for answer - "I think well of your suggestion in reference to the Thomas vs. Spofford case, and have written him to that effect, and doubt not it may be so arranged." - that in consequence of the omission to file the specification of defense and the virtual acceptance of the proposition to refer the plaintiff did not suppose, and much less understand that a trial would be pressed at this term, and had not made any preparation, and could not go safely to trial.
The Judge ruled that the omission of the defendants was no such why the plaintiff should not have been prepared for trial, neither was the reply to the proposition to refer any excuse, and a non suit was entered.
This ruling is of considerable interest to the Profession, if it is to become the settled practice of the whole Bench, inasmuch as many have supposed that a principal object to be attained by the filing of specification of defense at least fourteen days before the court was to give the plaintiff notice that a trial was to be had in season for him to prepare for it. But such does not seem to be the idea of Judge Davis.