Opinion
No. 6883
Decided January 31, 1975
1. After the supreme court was told that plaintiff's counsel had been unable to locate his client and that neither counsel had any knowledge about the authenticity of a typewritten letter which had been received by the court after oral argument and which stated over appellee's purported signature that his claim was false, the supreme court remanded to the superior court the question of the authenticity and effect of the letter.
Wiggin, Nourie, Sundeen, Pingree Bigg (Mr. Dort S. Bigg, Jr. orally) for the plaintiff.
Gerard O. Bergevin and Richard J. D'Amours (Mr. Bergevin orally) for the defendant.
Memorandum Opinion
Defendant's exceptions to a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3,633.75 were reserved and transferred by the Trial Court, Cann, J. Subsequent to oral argument this court received a typewritten letter purportedly signed by the plaintiff. In substance this letter states that the claim of the plaintiff is false and he is "retracting" his suit against the defendant. On order of the court, counsel for the parties again appeared orally. They informed the court that neither had any knowledge of the authenticity of the letter and that plaintiff's counsel had been unable to locate his client. The case is remanded to the trial court for such further hearing as it deems necessary to determine the authenticity and effect of the letter received by this court.
Remanded.