Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 08.pdf/43

 26

Strout had agreed to sit near the regularly retained counsel of the defendant for the purpose of advice and consultation only, but he soon saw that something more was required if there was to be a successful de fense, and with characteristic generosity un dertook the task with the result already stated. An important equity suit, Railroad Co. v. Belfast, J7 Maine, 445, in which Mr. Strout was counsel for preferred stockholders, came before the court in 1884—5 ant' attracted at tention on account of its novelty. The court, in its opinion by Chief-Justice Peters, decided in favor of the claim for dividends, sustaining the contention of the preferred stockholders. This case is often quoted on the question of what arc " net earnings," and when stockholders may compel the payment of dividends. White v. Insurance Co., 57 Maine, 91, was a noted one at the time by reason of there being but two decisions cited by the counsel, one by each, and they, one in Illinois and the other in Pennsylvania, being opposed to each other. Insured goods had been removed from a building not on fire, but in close proximity to burning buildings, and in the removal were damaged. The building from which they were so removed was not burned, and if •the goods had not been removed they would have been un harmed. In an action on the policy Mr. Strout claimed damages for a "loss by fire." The late Judge Davis, who appeared for the defendant, argued the contrary. The court sustained the view of the law taken by Mr. Strout, who argued the question ably on general principles. A late jury case which excited consider able attention on account of its political aspect, and which Mr. Strout defended, was U. S. v. Biddeford Aldermen, in the U. S. Circuit Court, before Judges Colt and Webb, indicted for fraudulently tampering with the voting lists of that city. The defendants were Democrats, while the jury was com

posed of eight Republicans, three Demo crats and one Mugwump. Mr. Strout, with whom Mr. Haley was associated, took a great interest in the case, and against the vigilant prosecution of District Attorney Dyer obtained an acquittal. For the past twenty years the State of Maine, although strongly Republican, has adhered to the policy of appointing one member of the minority party to the bench of the Supreme Judicial Court. Its first appointment of this kind was the late Hon. Artemas Libbey, whose character and ability alone entitled him to the position which he adorned for nearly twenty years. Upon his death, which occurred March 15, 1894, by an almost unanimous voice, Hon. Scwall C. Strout succeeded to the vacancy, and having been appointed April 12, he began the duties of his judicial life on the twentyfourth day of the same month at Houlton. Such a natural and suitable destiny, and the fulfillment of the ambition of so devoted and successful a lawyer, is considered fitting throughout the State. Younger members of the Bar are encouraged and all know they can try their cases before a judge who can and does appreciate the rights of coun sel in the trial of their causes. Besides this, his temperament excludes any idea of stern ness that inclines toward severity, while his firmness is rather of a paternal manner withal in stilling and quieting the passions and excitements of litigants. He has con tributed to the law two valuable and impor tant opinions. The first, State v. Hamlin, 86 Maine, 495, sustains the constitutionality of the "Collateral Inheritance Tax"; and the second, Somerset Ry. v. Pierce, to ap pear in the 88th Maine, confirms the valid ity of the plaintiff corporation, that had been organized under the foreclosure of a mort gage. It is a pleasure to meet the Judge socially. His conversation indicates a man of broad views and sympathies. He has a playful humor, and when combined with wit is pro