Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1869-03-26
s. y. COURT--MARCH =.
"a KENT, ]. PRESIDING. -
WEDNESDAY.
No. 232. Reuben f. Eames VS.. Cey-

/ No. 232. Reuben f. Eames VS.. Cey-
Ion Rowe ct ais.
Account annexed, for balance due on
SAG pounds of hops, charged at fifty
cents pound, and paid for at forty cents
pound Plaintiff relies upon a prom
Use in writing, that he should receive all
that the hops nett to the defendants. ), and
alleges that they sold them mingled with
several other lots. at fifty cents a pound.
The defer dants say-true, il is as You
allege, but the price of fifty cents pound
was arrived at, by averaging the worth
of the different lots, and yours We're of
an inferior quality, which the parties to
whom We sold would allow us to with
draw at forty cents pound.
The plaintiff replies | do not know
nor care whether that is so; but my hops
were worth fifty cents pound. On
this there was a conflict of testimony.
Verdict for Plaintiff, S9l ,95.
uammons. Gibson.
THURSDAY.
Alverado Hayford, VS. John II. Waite.
Trespass, quare cidusunl. not for the
purpose of trying title but to recover
damages for value of bark and trees TAX
en- from the plaintiffs land. It's agreed
that the parties were tenants in common
Of the locus ia quo that on the 25lh day
of November, 1867, they divided their
land in halves, each quitclalming to the
other moiety. Previous 10 the division,
by ,acit consent, each party had gone on
to the common property and cut and
hauled off fire wood. and 1T the time OF
the division there was on the part quit
claimed to the plaintiff, a pile of bark
which had been peeled by the defendant,
and four hemlock trees from which the
bark had been peeled Each party claim
this. The plaintiff, because ii fell on his
half and was therefore real estate. and II
not, being personal property, then 1t was
in his possession, and he had an equal
right 10 IL with the defendant; that
whether real estate or personal property.
the defendant had no right to remove it.
The plaintiff did not seriously contend
tina, the bark was real estate. but he did
contend that the hemlock trees from
which the bark had been peeled were
real estate Whether IL was or not de-
ponds upon the construction of the Stat
ute Of 1867. which Is made for n case
ike this. but somewhat clumSily drawn
and perhaps ambiguous The statute
provides. that all down trees. or timber
living upon the land shall pertain to the
soil. but when such timber or trees aS
aforesaid shall have been cut into wood,
logs or other timber. or bark shall have
been peeled. The same shall be personal
property. and the owner orowners there
of shall have a reasonable time in which
10 take the same ofr. The general mean
inc of this statute seem, to be, that when
trees have been fcllrd and have not been
worked up into materials for use, that
they are to be treated n real estate;
otherwise personal property, The am
bigui,r consists in this, whether the stat
ute means 10 asser, that the bark when
peeled i personal property, or that the
trees from which the bark has been peel
ed IS personal property. II is conceded
that part if not all of the trees, nj the
time O: the division. remained upon the
land as when they were first felled, eX-
cepting only that the bark had been
peeled from them. The defendant con
tends that the pceling of the bark rem
dcrs them personal property, and that
the labor Of the defendant upon them
made that property his, The plaintiff
controyerts both these propositions of
law So far, the case presents no con
troyersy n 20 the facts. bat the defend
ant states further that there was an I'M
derstanding practiced upon by both par
ties, that before the division they should
have the right not only to cut and carry
away fire wood. but also to cut and carry
away trees tor other uses. This the
plaintiff denies
After the division of the real estate.
the parties, being unable to agree upon
their rights. in regard 10 the amount of
wood hauled of by each during the four
years in which they had held ii in com
mon, were not in good frame of mind
TO agree upon the matter of the hemlock
trees. Hence this suit, and nice legal
question for decision.
After the evidence was ont. the ease
was withdrawn from the Jury and sub
mitted to the presiding Judge for final
decision.
Judgment for the plaintiff, $500
Harlow. Swasey.
Cyrus A. Burrows vs.. Samuel NJ.
King
Account annexed, for one months
wages for labor of plaintiff, for defend
ant. in May, 1867, S2i. 1t is not denied
that the plaintiff did the work and has
not been paid.
The defendant SAYS that he did not
hire him for one month at S24., but for
four months for 900, and the plaintiff
says the same, excepting that he says
there was condition in the contract,
which in fact made ii no contract at all
that either party should have the right to