Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1875-09-28

municipal officers oil the town Vi
as required by the law of 1874 SAID low"
was not liable.
Cont ruled that the law did not app,
where the life OF an individual was io''.
4,b. That AS the towns Of Oxford anu
Hebron had kept said bridge in repair
Jointly the town of Oxford was not sep
ara,ely liable.
Court ruled that where two are lo'n'N
liable It will not preclude the Injured
party from recovering full damages from
one.
Verdict for pm for s7co. The cei's
carry the ccse to the full court on excep-
tons aud motion Tor new trial.
Davis. ie''''
/ Black.
The case was conducted with much
akin bv the counsel on both sides, ana
the evident honesty and Importantly OF
the Witnesses. elected much approval
| from the spectators.
Orlando c. Houghton ct al V the Granu
Trunk Railway Co.
This was au action on the case Tor the
recovery of car load OF $50 bushels oil
potatoes which the plffs delivered 10 the
Company as common carriers NOV "a
1873. TO be carried TO j Libby " Bro al
Portland The plfFs claim is ased on
the facts that SAID potatoes were delivered
to said Company on Monday, Nov. "a
when the weather was sufficiently mild TO
warrant them in being carried through
from Bryanl's Pond to Portland without
injury by frost; but that instead OF their
being shipped on that day they were not
started I'LL Tuesday morning, owing TO
some delay in the trains that they were
transported as far as Oxford Station.
where they were set of on account oil q
defect in the car and where they remained
Till Thursday afternoon, and were then
sent into Portland and delivered 10 the
consignee, Libby, Friday morning, when
il was found that more than one half OF
the potatoes were frozen. The plhi
claimed that the Company were liable for
damages on account Of their negligence
in the delay on account OF the defective
ear and the freezing OF the potatoes. The
deits claimed that they were no. liable Tor
the freezing OF merchandise. because II
was the act OF God, and one of the ex
ceplions iu the common law liability oil
common carriers. and also that there was
a special contract signed by the Hough
tons exemptiug the Company from all
liability on account OF frost. accident,
&c. The special contract WAS put in by
the defense dated Nov. "a, 1873, and
then the plf's claimed that it was never
signed till six weeks after the dana &c to
the potatoes and was not binding on
them. and tina; he date oil the contract
was not correct.
The Jury after being out some time
returned a verde, for $4,000 The deii
Company carry il up to the law court or
exceptions
Foster " Hersey. j & f. NJ. Rand.
Donald NJ Torsev Lou Phinney.
Pm lives m Dxielj def in Weld
. Action on note and mortgage given Sept.
Il, 1869. on two years tor Sl65 for yoke
OF steers. sold by p.l 10 def and mort
gagged back for security. The PHI claimed
that the steers were roturned JAn'y l.
1872. and appraised by three persons at
$50. and that amount endorsed on the
note. and the action was Tor balance OF
the note.
The defense was that the steers were
returned long before Jan y /, 1872, viz :
Jan'g 10Th preceding. and At that lime
settlement in full was made and receipt
in toll given by plff to deit. Pf denied
the receipt and that there was any set
Element that covered the balance on this
note. The testimony was very conflicting.
Verdict Tor deit.
Randall. Ludden.
Foster 4 Hersey.
Laughlin VS. Dean ct al
This was an action TO recover the value
OF yoke OF steers and two year old
heifer sold by Maj. Hastings OF Bethel to
Messrs. Dean & Daniels. drovers, for
Mr. Laughlin. The testimony developed
the following facts. MIR. LHugblin had
some cattle in Maj. llistings's pasture.
As Mai Hastings was about selling some
cattle to Daniels. L1ughlin requested him
TO dispose OF those he was pasluring for
Mr.. l.. There was some misurlerstand
Ing AS to which heller Llughlin owned.
and Mai. ii. claimed that he told Daniels
he was not certain which animal it was.
but he would sell him one OF three in the
pasture. Daniels took the steers and The
heifer and drove them of with bis herd
When be paid Major Hastings for the
cattle purchased OF him, DIniels declined
to pay for Laughlin's on the ground that
the heller was not the one be thought TO
buy. Action was Immediately taken, and
the cattle were sold by an officer for $50.
The defendant claimed that the cattle
were TO be delivered 10 him at Bethel
Hill, and that he was TO have a certain
heller. As the cattle were not delivered