Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1869-03-19

arrested. The plaintiffs claim that
simple bossA Of the heighth of wagon
nailed along Ne Inside of the frame
workef 90 bridge. would render i safe
aud would hare prevented this accident
The dsfsndants deny that bridge %
constfucted is defective within the faea,'-
ing Of the law, and that the shying of
the horse and the unskilfulnoss and lack
of care of the driver contributed TO the.
damage, and that therefore the plaintiffs
cannot recover. trY
THURSDAY.
Standish Buck vs. Nathaniel p. Shaw.
Trespass for false Imprisonment of
plaintiff in February, 1867, For six days in
the County Jail at Paris. The facts in
brief are, that the defendant, a Deputy
Sheriff, had in his hands four separate war
rants issued by Justice Richardson Of
DixGeld, against the plaintiff, a minor,
plaintiffs father and two other men, all
charged with arson for Burning the barn
Of Erwin Robinson, within the curtilage of
his dwellinghouse Each of the warrants
ordered the officer to return the respond.
ents forthwith before q magistrate and to
summon witnesses.
The deft's counsel, In opening, stated
that the officer acted under the advice Of
the County Attorney, ,okeepthe prisoners
apart, not to allow them TO confer with
each other, and to bring them for trial
before the same magistrate, and that in
following the instruction Of the County
Attorney he acted with al possible dis
patch. tina, he arrested the plaintiff in this
case and committed him tor custody. not
to the county Jail. but into the personal
custody ofthe Sheriff and Jailer. II. Austin.
for safe keeping As matter OF fact he
was kept for the most of the time IN Jail
and was not returned beiorci the magistrate
till some or days after his arrest. The
plaintiff. the plaintiffs father and ono OF
the other respondents was then brought
before Justice Richardson at Paris, and
tried together. The plaintiff father was
bound over. The plaintiff was discharged.
there being no evidence against him.
The Judge instructed the jury. that it
was the duty OF the officer TO obey his
precept and not the instructions of the
prosecuting officer. and TO return the
plaintiff forthwith before trial Justice.
where, if il was not convenient to try him
at once, he might have the opportunity
Of giving bail if the offence was bailablc.
and 10 make arran gements for his trial.
That the ignoming of the prosecution was
not an element of damage against the
officer, because he did not originate the
complaint.
Verdict for plaintiif-damages S22.25.
Andrews. Black. Bisbee. Harlow.
FRIDAY.
Martha II. Bartlett. Administrative, VS..
Ezekiel Merrill Bartlett.
Assumpsit to recover the amount of
three notes of $50 each, signed by the
defendant and found among the papers OF
| Stephen Bartlett, brother Of the defendant
and husband of the plaintiff II is not
/ denied that the three notes were signed by
the defendant and for his benefit That
one of them was signed by Stephen who
was not n nominal party to the other two
notes
The plaintiff claims to recover the
amount OF the three notes on the strength
Of letter OF January 1876, written by the
defendant from the State of Missouri,
where he has resided since he left this
State in February, 1881, in which the
defendant requests his brother Stephen to
take up any paper against him in this
State The plaintiffs story is, that in
pursuance of that letter, Stephen, in his life
time paid the notes, one dated February
Path, 1929, given 10 Bowdoin College,
another to the College on which Stephen
was holden dated February 23d, 1880, on
third of February 10Th 1881, to Polly
Rawson.
The defendant says that all these notes
have been paid by him. That tor the
note Stephen signed he left n horse with
him, which Stephen afterwards sold for
500 That another ofthe notes his father
before his death in 1882, made him n
present of the sum for hich it was given.
That for the Sd note his brother stephen,
who administered on the estate of his
father. retained his share OF the personal
property which would cancel the note,
and that over and above all this, that his
brother Freeborn e.. Bartlett, short time
before his fathers death, on visit to this
State, gave his father 500, with which
To pay OF these notes. He also states
that two OF the children of the plaintiff
for whose benefit this suit was brought.
resided with him months at his residence
in Missouri, for which before the bringing
OF this suit he had made no charge.
The plaintiffs counsel replies, that the
suit would not have been brought but for
All intimation of Freeborn Bartlett in the
presence OF the defendant, that himself and
the defendant claimed share of the real
estate which Stephen Bartlett received
from their father Some Intellectual efforts
were made to compromise after the
evidence was out and the case was then
submitted to the jury.