Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1874-09-22
5. j. COa7't--Sept. Term, 1874.
DANFoRTH, JUSTICE PRESIDING.
Tic first case taken up was:

twenty dollars, aud that the action should
have commenced before Trial Justice.
Verde, Tor plaintiff, Sl9.1.
n 5 Littlelield. A 5 Kiniball.
Elias n Smith VS. John w Jones.
Action TO recover for % days labor in
the Corn Factory oil defendant at Bridg
ton. Defence. that plaintiff agreed TO
work for the entire corn season and leil
without any justification.
Verdict for plaintiff Tor $3l.76.
n 5 Liitlclield. a ) kimbali.
Ebenezer X Estes vs. A " ST l. X Il Co.
An action for running over aud killing
plaintiffs cattle. Defence that the cattle
were killed through pins negligence in
leaving the gate open.
Verdict for pa. Exceptions filed.
Hammous. IL L NJ Rand.
Marshal Sanders on ct AIS VS. John
Hazoltinc.
This was an action brought on Il war
ranly OF yoke OF oxen. The piifs were
engaged in the logging business in The
winter OF '72-z3, and by their agent. Gil
man Chapman. purchased of the delft u
yoke OF oxen and paid him $40. The
plls alleged that the def sold said oxen
to their agent and warranted that they
were 10 measure 9 It. inches and II. D
inches,-and were bought 10y said Chap
man on the recommendation OF the delt,
at the time he was on his way TO Augusta
Dec so. 1872, the said oxen not having
been seen or examined 10y the pits before
the bargain was completed. The delft
claimed that the oxen were what no &c
commended, and that he never warranted
them 10 DO OF any particular size At the
time OF sale, but claimed that he told the
plfs agent how large they were the Fall
before. and that in TACT they were rs large
as he stated in the Fall, although they
had shrunk several inches at the time OF
sale. The pllls claimed that they were
obliged TO sell the cattle at \ great loss.
rs they were unit for the woods.
Verdict FOR the defendant.
Hammons. Foster.
Black
Alighill Mason rs Gilman Chapman.
This was an action OF TreSpass tor
breaking and entering the plf'5 close
being the yard near his dwelling house
in June ls73.and hauling away three dat
stones. The def pleaded in Justification,
first. that said stones were the property
of the town OF Bethel. the same havi-g
been taken from the highway by the pin
two years before, and that he, the defend
ant. a, highway surveyor. had a right 10
take them from pllI's close; aud second.
that If they did not belong TO The town
then. he IS such Surveyor, had lSht e.
enter upon pla-s unincIosed iand and take
the stone Tor the purpose OF repairing the
highway, and relied upon sect. 81, chap.
- OF the Revised Statutes ia relation o.
highway surveyors, in Justification OF his
acts. The PIN, on the other hand, claim
ed that the def had no right 10 take said
stone from his premises, even ii he was %
surveyor, and denied that the town own
cd them. There WAS mass OF conflict
ing testimony, aud as 10 the title 10 the
stone in dispute. The den took tho stone
after he had been forbidden by PIN, a,
Witch time many angry words were said,
aud the dctt claimed he was iutimidated
10 some extent by the display Of weapons
III The hands oil the p.N. The court ruled,
among other things, tha, highway sur
vryOr would no; De protected in gong
upon premises Of PIN. even il unincloS,d
as his were. and hauling oil stone or
other material that had been severed from
the soil 10y the pin and designated for any
use Of his own; that j; was only materials
that had existed IN natural state, and
which had not been removed from lis
original bed or location, and which had
not been designated by lis owner for pur-
poses of his own. that surveyor could
take. and not even thea from 4 mans
yard, but only from uninclosed lands.
The jury returned verdict for the pin
for the value OF the stone. and the del
carries the case up TO the Full Court on
exceptions 10 the Judges rulings.
Foster. llammons
Horny Goodnow VS. Lysander Ordway.
Action of Tort, for damages breaking
plil7s arm in an atrray in delt's dooryard,
on the 18th of June. 1873. Pin went to
delt's house. and told him his colt was in
his (prTO pasture. Angry words toll
lowed. aud PHI alleges that he was hit on
the arm by club in delt's hands. which
broke his arm as he was Tending off the
blow. Delt and vile and son, all of
whom were present, deny that any blow
was struck. The damages are set al
$4,000.
The jury rendered 4 verdict for the plil
of S66j. Al.
Gibson Sc C II Aver. W Hammons.
Joseph + Emery VS. Henry c Deane.
Action to recover money paid by mis-
take. in the settlement OF some notes.
Verdict Tor plr S21 Il. Deit carries
the case up.
Black. Perry.
on TRIAL, MONDAY.
c ii Holden vs. Joseph Robinson.
Action for damages Tor obSirnciing