The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1876-03-13
The plaintiff SAYS chat in 1ses George Merril the

The plaintiff says that in 1868 George Merrill, the
defendant, wishing to build brig applied to his
father for the oak timber then standing the farm;
tnat he heard conversation between George and
MS father, in which the father agreed that George
might take this shptimber for the brig if he (Georg
would pay this Gallison mortgage, to which George
replied that he would; that subsequently he heard
the defendant assure his father that he need not
trouble himself about the mortgage for he would pay
It, The father died in January, 1867, while defendant
was absent on a voyage at sea.
The plaintiff says in February, 1857, the defendant
returned and had conversation with his mother in
which the mother asked Georgeif he had paid the
mortgage, and George said he had, and the mother
said she wished his father could have known it in his
life time, and said that his father left dying request
for him to either deliver up the mortgage OF pay for
the oak timber he had fol the brig tha the defendant
replied that be could not give it up for he had de-
stroyed both the note and the mortgage.
1t appears from the testimony that from the time
the defendant took up the mortgage in 1866 until af
ter the death of his father in '67 and his mother in
1873 he did not attempt to collect the interest and
never made known to the father that he had taken
up the mortgage.
The defendant does not deny that the ship-tmber
was delivered to him. but he does deny that the
sideraion of the sale was any agreement his part
to take up the Gallison mortgage. He says in 1878
his father and he jointly purchased some timber of
the Wnslows for the price of $780, that they were
equally interested in the transaction that he de-
PENDANT, paid $3.50 down, in gold, out of his own
pocket, and they gave three notes of 5000 each, pay
able in one two and three years; that the two notes
which matured earliest were paid out of the pro-
ceeds of the sale of the Winsow timber, but before
the third note became due, the Winslows wishing to
a1izar no no md tba dafa apd
his father not being ready to advance it prior to the
maturity of the note it sold to Henry Gallison;
that subsequently the defendant by labor and mate
rails paid his half of that note, and it endorsed
upon the note paid by his hand. leaving the faith
ers half due and unpaid and it that the CALI
son mortgage was given to secure. Defendant says
nothing was ever received by him as remuneration
for the $125 gold which he paid for his father the
Winslow timber down to the winter Of '63, when he
built the brig that he then asked his father to give
him this oak timber in payment of the $125 and in
terest, and his father did so. As to the Galison
mortgage defendant says that in 66 his father then
blind and feeble, spoke to him about his embarrassed
condition and feared it would turn him out of doors
that he, out of sympothy and pity. told him he
needn't worry about it, that he would take care of it,
The defendant produced two of the Winslow notes,
both dated in 1858, one payable one year from Feb
1855, but the note upon which he claimed the en-
dorsement was made, was not produced. The plain
tiff claimed that according to the defendants state
ment the notes produced were the two last notes
that fell DUE therefore the testimony of the defend
ant about the endorsement could not be correct.
In regard to the mutilation of the note defendant
says when he came to pay he had lost of the
sympathy for his father and felt rritated to think he
had agreed to pay it, and upon getting hold of the
note "the impulse flashed into my mind would de.
stroy the note no matter whether I ever got any,
thing for it or not" and Immediately tore the name
off and into four pieces; that Gallison told him he
ought not to do it, and thereupon he passed the
pieces to Miss Gason to repair, which she tes-
titled she did the next day.
There was large amount of testimony introduced
on both sides tending to cOrroborate the story of
side or the other and of course very conflicting
The jury after being out three hours returned YER
dict for the plaintiff for $301.47.
Defendants counsel files motion for new trial and
exceptions to the ruling of the presiding judge in re-
fusing to allow him to comment upon the fact that
the plaintiff challenged one of the jurors from the
panel before proceeding to trial.
Mattocks & Fox for plaintiff.
Vinton for defendant.
Daniel R. Bush VS.. Isabella Murray and Michael
Murray. This is an action under the statute of 1872
to recover damages alleged to have been sustained
by the plaintiff by of the defendants selling
his wife intoxicating liquor, whereby she became
drunk and destroyed furniture clothing, etc., to
large amount. On trial.
Clifford for plaintiff.
Howard & Cleaves for defendants