Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1876-09-26

| in Tho matter aud wanted Pariln To give
bim back his mortgage and note iar''"
wonld not consent 10 this. but hoaliy
gaya the mortgage and mite back 10
Stetjnn. said Stetson paying bim therefor
by giving up 10 Parlin s31 note ho held
against him. P,aintiifs claim that mas
much as 1t was understood 10 be u cancel
lation aud pay ment ol The mo'tg"S"
when given up To Pariiu aud 81 under
stood 10y The parties at tie time. the act
at the said Stetson does not place him
back in Siitps qt0 because the rights oil
the second mortgage intervene.
After the testimony was ont the Court
suggested That The case be carried to The
Law Court on report as it was = question
of law n to the rights OF the parties.
Foster. Harlow.
! Benson.
Considerable amusement was created
by divorce case which was Introduced
towards evening.
No 81, Davis ct al ". Merrill, was
ui-d Thursday afternoon.
The action was brought by Davis IL Co.
OF Boston 10 recover The value OF some
Arithmetics introduced into Buecklield By
the s. S. Committee in 1868. Testimony
show ed hat in 1865 Dr. Bradbury and A.C
Whitman. against the wishes of a.
Merrill, who. with them composed the
school board, Introduced Greenleafs
Aritbmetics into the schools OF Buckheld.
were forwarded to him by Express. Ds-
Wis u Co. tried 10 collect their bill, but
being unable TO do so. sent their clerk B..
H. Slnborn to Bdcklield to look the mat
ter up. He ascertained that Merrill was
the only one oil the three who was worth
the amount charged tor the books. Suit
was commenced against him accordingly.
Defendant claimed thai he was in nowise
u party 10 the trade with Davis ~ Co.
and had opposed the introduction OF the
books. Being out numbered on the
board. he submitted and took sufficient
number of books TO supply bis district.
For these he had always and was still
ready to pay. Defence also set up stat
ute OF limitations, claiming that the writ
was ante.dated in order TO cover the
case. Ruled that acts OF Whitman and
Bradbury could in no wise hold The third
member of this hoard. He must have
been a Marty IN the contract "a an original
psr,y or By subsequent assent. Verdict
tor defendant.
Cohb A. Raw Whitman
Andrews.
~.
So 49, 49, % r '''''' Wv
'-'''' - -
'"0 t'''''''o" VI '"' Wv ''''''' ~ va
" NJ ''O"' 'o' ""''''''O ''''''' :" i''''
tne P'''"'''' ''''''''"l' '""' SUI "'s io'
'o''O Wv ! ~ ''''' '' 81
""u 'o"''''''''"H "~''e 'Nei'ou ""H any
ins d ''"So"' '""' '"o u'''"u""' HAS
''o"'u '"o sal" uo"'' 'S'A'' ~ NC "u-
''i'''ou "'" o"'N WI ''N'' - '"0 ~"
u " oou''D'H '"-' '''o ""' "''' 90 ''''
-
''''''' VI O"'''"a '''' my ''0'" ''"' ~
} GIL anu Se'''"H '"o '''''e ~" ''' P'o'''-
'Sos 'na' sue "aS "'o"eu l"0 '"'-H. " =
" 20 u uecaJ of NOT Swinging INC same
tuA' oAiA mas oee" S'I'PPeu i'o'n ia'Re
quan'lly VI trees ine ueieuu"nt con
tended that no legal sale Tor taxes OF the
land had ever been made, aud that there
lore II was vold sale, ana she was not
Responsible Tor their lie gal act. and the
Court ruled that there vas no legal sale
and that the Plaintin must resort 10 the
other allegations oil waste 10 order 10 re-
cover IN this action and upon the other
points the evidence was conflicting, show
lng that there was much hard feeling be-
tween 'he parties anu Tue defense SCI up
was '""'' '"'o"'os away Tue taA ''le
"h'ch was 'olu' Tue P'a'uliu was ciHen
70 resort 10 Inc DINER allegations IN her
DC legally sustained inasmuch as no ma
terial injury could be shown to result to
the inheritance, and which is necessary