Daily Kennebec Journal

AN AUGUSTA CASE.

Law Court Decision in Case of W. H. Fisher vs. Robert Shea.

The Maine law court has handed down the following rescript in the case of W. H. Fisher, Esq., of this city against Robert Shea of Bath, formerly of Augusta. Justice Peabody wrote the rescript. The case went to the law court on report. Following is the text of the rescript:

The plaintiff's attorneys-at-law, brought this action to recover for professional services rendered by them in behalf of the defendant, in defense of an action for an alleged assault and battery.

The defendant at the time of the alleged assault was acting as a police officer. He was not arrested on the writ, and the suit was disposed of by an entry of "neither party, no further action."

The amount claimed by the attorneys for their services was a reasonable compensation.

At the time of the service of the plaintiff's writ there was due from the trustee to the defendant fifteen dollars as wages for his personal labor, for a time not exceeding one month next preceding the service of the process.

The question presented is whether the funds in the hands of the trustees are exempt from attachments under Chapter 86, Section 55, R. S., paragraph. The trustee can be held only if the subject matter of this suit against the defendant is for "necessaries," furnished him or his family.

Aside from the exclusion of certain classes of articles or services, of which it may be predicted as a matter of law that they are not comprised in the term, "necessaries," what are necessaries is a question of fact, dependent upon the varying circumstances of each case. It is impossible to make general rules sufficiently definite to admit or exclude all cases as matter of law. It is only practical to contract the debatable ground as far as possible.

As applied to legal services rendered in litigation, a safe rule of general application is that such rendered in the defense of a criminal prosecution, and in defense of a civil action in which the defendant has been arrested, are necessaries.

In the present case there was no arrest, but the fact that he was liable to arrest on execution after judgment against him is to be considered. It is analogous to cases where original arrests were made.

The defendant was a police officer and as such liable to prosecutions of the character described in this case. The suit against him affected his reputation as a citizen and an officer, and he was forced to defend it to avoid consequences more injurious than the loss of property rights; and the legal services rendered in his defense, under the circumstances, may properly be included in the term, necessaries, to which the statute has given preference.

Trustee charged for fifteen dollars.