The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1873-02-25
SuIleriQr Court.

FEBRUARY CIVIL TERM, BEFORE JUDGE sy-
MONDS.
MoNDAY.-In the case of George Curtis VS.. Charles
Staples ct als tried at the December term before the
Court without the Intervention of jury, decision
was rendered for the defendants.
The case shows that plaintiff was in the employ Of
the Forest Paper Company, as general managing
agent from December, 1871 to August 1872; that, as
such agent, it his duty to superintend the re-
building Of the mill which had been burned and to
make contracts for the purpose of new machinery,
and it admitted, that under contracts entered in
to by defendants with plaintiff, such agent ma
chnery to the amount of S11 1925, was manufactured
by defendants for the Forest Paper Company.
Upon this amount received by the defendants for
the manufacture of this machinery the plaintiff
claiyus to receive commission of two and onehalf
per cent? amounting to S29s 12 less 500 already paid
by defts towards that amount. 1t admitted that
during the negotiations for the manufacture of the
machinery, Staples & Son aged to pay the commits
sion bonus to the por giving them the preference
other parties who were ready to do the work at
the same rates. The amount of the commission or
bonus was added to the contract price.
Staples & Son have been paid in full by the Forest
Paper Company.
Upon this statement OF facts the presiding judge
ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover
that plaintiff agent for the purchasers of the
machinery, bound in good faith to make the best
tract for them he could, any stipulation by him with
the seller manufacturers for a separate profit to
himself out of the transaction, fraud upon bis
principals and void; and while defendants were
equally parties to the fraud upon the Paper Company
and have reaped the profits of it, STILL their legal LA
bility for the amount recovered if any exists is tc
the Paper Company and not to the plaintiff De.
cision for defendants.
Bradburys for plaintiff.
Butler & Fessenden for defendants.
r. NJ Richardson ct ais. VS.. Calvin W. Allen. Thii
was an action upou promisscry note for $780, dated
in 1862 payable year from date tried by the judge
without a jury at the December term. There were
several Endorsements the note amounting in all to
$255. The note was Endorsed to plaintiffs by Oscar
o. Allen the payee.
The defendant testified that the note was given to
his brother Oscar collateral security for the pay
ment Of oneha of the net proceeds of their deceased
sisters estate of which defendant was administrator
that the several Endorsements upon the note were
payments. not upon the note but towards his broth
ers disrbutve share of the estate and in full there
for.
To rebut this defense the plaintiffs showed pretty
conclusiyely that two of the Endorsements were in
defendants handwriting, and the defendant admit
ted that it looked very much like his handwriting
but he had no recollection of seeing the note since il
was given until after he was sued. Decision fol
plaintiff for SOLOS,
Putnam for plaintiff. Giveen for defendant.
EJohn Dumphy VS.. John Coyerney. Debt OF
judgment for S1144 and on account annexed for rem
$780,
Defendant admitted there was due plaintiff 1926
and claimed the remainder had been paid. Decision
for the plaintiff for full amount claimed
Strout s. Gage for plaintiff
Sargent for defendant.
Assignment ofjury trials for the March term will
be made tomorrow CTuesday). Members of the bal
are requested to take notice.