The Portland daily press., 1867-10-17
su,repc Judicin, Court.

OCTOBER TFRM.-TAPLEY. J., PRESIDING. 81
S WEpNEsDAY.-Sirh Day.-Jacob Harris v. Chas.
Crossman, replevin for wolf robe, costing S45,
one harness $3S; Total SS3.
The uuiisputed ficts are that Charles Cr0ssman,
the defendant, a Deputy Sheriff in Brunswick, ON
the 9th day of December 1855 later than 10 o'clock
in the evening" took from one Abner IL. Harmon the
harness and robe in question; that Harmon took
them just before on the same evening" from the house
of his uncle Jacob Harris, ptf., and was on his way
with them to his own house; that the harness and
robe four days before were the property of William
j. Harmon, nephew of plaintiff and brother of Alb
ner H.; that William j. Harmon had failed and
changed his business often, and that the 23d of
December he had sold out his of goods for $1,000
and more; and late in the evening of the same Gay
sold the robe and harness in question. Crossman at
tached the articles writ, burlington and lib
belts v. William j. Harmon.
The plaintiff says the property his, that he
honestly bought it of William j. Harmon, and paid
for it $S3 as per bill shown.
The defendants counsel says that the purchase set
up by plaintiff in fraud of credtors that his
brother and his uncle and his friend Campbell were
aiding and abetins in the and eoncea rnen and
fraudulent sae that his stock dwindled down 10
$1,000 at the time of the pretended sale, while he had
incurred between $4,000 and $4,000 of debts in six
AiiuHthS, lew uHyS before the sale he had
bought flour on credit and sent il to Lewiston to be
sold under cost for cash that his brother, at II
O'Clock at night, found with the harness and robe
and then said it was his; and it was not till after
wards that the uncle came and laid claim to it, that
the brother pretended that he borrowed the harness
to go TO Lewiston in pung that il was as matter
OF act, bare ground at the time, and he did not 90 to
Lewiston at all; that the story of the uncle that he
did not know what The standing of bis nephew was
TO whom that lie had lent $450was incredible; that
the refusal OF the uncle to let the officers I'M his
house on request, to find secreed goods OF his nephew
showed ANYTHING but an honest disposition. MANY
other points and discrepancies of testimony were for
chilly presented by defendants counsel; the curious
expression i'll logic dropped from the counsel: the
witness had admitted that gave false account TO
the officer when he said the articles were his own; IT,
sad the counsel, you believe the witness own ac-
count he is liar.
The counsel for the plaintiff relied upon technical
objection that the officer at the time OF the taking
did not have writ in his hands; that the writ shows
return ON the 2Sth Of December while the proof Is
that the taking was on the 26ih or 9th. F
The officer testified that he took the goods on
writ, and on the 2sth OF December. The plaintiffs
witness gave the time OF taking earlier. The Judge
Instructed the jury that the officer was not justified
in the taking unless he had writ in his hands Mt the
time, and lefCthe jury to find the fact The counsel
for plaintiff also insisted tat fraud as proved or
gully knowledge on part Of plaintiff. The jury
found for defendant.
Orr. Simmons
Elihraim Folsom v. Moses Chapman This is a
case OF assnmps FOR milk and CERT in other articles
FURNISHED in the season of 1861 Defence part pay
nent IN cash and set off for the balance of account
The testimony was not closed at the adjournment