Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1870-09-30
MONDAY

MONDAY.
Inhabitants of Greenwood VS.. Daniel
P. Bennett. Complaint by plffts. against
defendant, father Of the alleged pauper
addressed 10 court, TO compel the father
to contribute for support OF his daugtor
the alleged paupcr. Defence WIS., that
the law was unconstitutional. not giving
def. right OF trial by jury-and that
plaintiffs had not proved payment OF any
expenses previous to the date oil the COM
plant. The plffls. were non-suited.
Hammons. Gibson and Foster.
Dealbra +. o. Whitman VS.. G. w.
Lunt. Action for money hail and re.
ccivcd. Verdict Tor plf., S9l.95.
Harlow Randall & Ludden.
TUESDAY.
A. p. Gibbs VS.. f. N. Bartlett. This
was I'm action of assumpsit to recover Ger
tain money alleged to have been paid by
mistake as TO boundary of farm decided
by def. to plff. in 1866. After opening
to The Jury the court. upon suggestion
from the deft,s attorney ruled that the plif.
could not maintain his action in the
prcsen, form, but that it should have been
brought in case for deceit, if anything
Thereupon the defendant claims to amend
the writ by insisting upon new count
to which the defendants attorney objects
as he was not in court TO try the question
of fraud, inasmuch as the writ rs first
made did not compel an answer for any
fraud, and therefore moved that the case
be continued, which was granted alter
short skirmish of counsel on legal points.
Considerable interest was manifested
in this case rs the law is still unsettled IN
this State on the points raised.
Bolster & Wright Foster
Clari,ia A. Kneeland vs.. Alfred East
man. Trover for stock. Facts de
veloped were these: Charles kncelnnd,
husband of pla., sold the stock in question
10 def. 1t was not questioned that pin
originally owned the stock: that she
sold same to her father, George Bryant
from whom both parties claim title.
Def. says Bryant sold said stock to W.
III. Knceland, who took Holmes note
thereon. That the legal title remained
in said Knecaud until it passed from him
10 Charles Knceland under whom delft
: claims by payment OF said note. The
plff claims that she bought back the stock
from Bryant and made Il conditional sale
10 knccland: that she fulfilled tho con
dhions and that the property became hers
Verdict for pfr. Damages, S2l2,90.
Kimball. Hastings.
Charles Holt VS. Pleman Holt. A suit
by son TO recover back Bounty money
paid TO father, while he was n minor.
Before the court.
Judg for plf, 1894, Exceptions taken
Bearce q Virgin Black & Perry.
Frank Holmes vs.. Isaac G.. Virgin
As.umpsit Tor flour. The receipt of flour
admitted; defence. that it was in a
damaged state and that defendent paid
agent of lF in produce. Verdict for
plr., Sli5,0l.
The produce WAS not allowed for. The
damage. abuu, 5000, dollars deducted.
Swascy Harlow.
THURSDAY.
Jano Mcconnell vs. Apphia Chase. on
trial This is an action betwoena maiden
lady and widow woman about the title
to farrow COW Those who have listened
TO the trial have come TO the conclusion
that as stock has fallen since the suit was
brought, the attorneys have more than
consumed the value OF the cow, and that
the real question is, which attorney shall
get the poorcow IS part payment for fees
Gibson. Foster.
1t is probable that the Court will moi
get through with their business before
next week.