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

+. u. Gibbs. Peru.
VIM. Gordon, Fry eburg.
ID. ID. GRAHAM, Hebron.
Geo. w. Haskell. BeIhe'.
John II. Howe, Rpmiord.
Jacob b. Littlehale, j., Newry.
SECOND Panel.
Geo. w. Rand, Waterford, Foreman.
Daniel Lowell, Denmark
Hilton McAIister. S,oneham.
ADsel Moody, Woodstock.
Nahum Moore, Buckteld.
Aimeron Roberts, Han over.
Benz. +. Robertson. Hartford.
Dsuiel Towle, Porter.
Hszen &. Virgin, Mexico.
Barnes Walker. %, Lowell.
Joshua i. Weeks, RoXburj.
Daniel Bisbee, CaCton.
SUPPLEMENTARY.
Hiram Young, Bethel, excused first
day.
The first day was entirely consumed in
organizing the Court and calling docket.
Wednesday morning the first case. No.
$50, Carpenter vs.. Grand Trunk K. Il.
Co. was brought 20 trial.
This was an action brought against the
Grand Trunk by Francis l.. Carpenter for
damages claimed to be sustained by
plaintiff on account Ot his having been
elected from defendants passenger train.
Evidence shew tina, on March ;, 1873.
plaintiff purchased ticket At Portland
Tor Montreal over Defendants road. As
the train was about starting plaintiff nc
ticed that his ticket was limited TO one
continuous passage, TO be made in two
days. lie asked conductor Ter stop-oyer
checks but was ted that il he held
bis ticket, passage was secured.
Plaintiff had companion travelling with
him. They were Introducing a stove
hook, and stopped 4. various stations for
that purpose. On March 30 they boarded
the train at CoaltiCook. having previously
checked their baggage TO Sherbrook.
Soon after leaving Coatucook conductor
examined their tickets, remarked they
were out dated, requested them TO pay
their fare, and rs they declined ordeled
them to leave the train. They declined
and replied it they lelt, they must be
elected. Conductor procured assistance
and elected them. Ia The scutlls, plain
tifl's coat was torn and his left hand re-
ceived slight injury. lie claimed $500
damages. Defendant introduced testi-
mony OF conductor, 10 same effect; but
esisted the claim Tor damages, first be-
cause assault was committed in foreign
county; second because conductor was
doing his duty, and used no more force
than was necessary. Judge Peters IN
strucled the jury that contract made in
Portland entitled passenger TO sale co.,
duct all the way TO Montreal; and that
though the assault were committed in
Canada, defendant was liable for the
noniuifllment OF contract, il action we've
maintained here. Only question tor jury
was that of damages. Verdict for plain
tiff $500.
The case was tried with great despatch
and in a business like manner. Nothing
but facts were introduced, and they in a
most compact form. The arguments
were brief and pointed. being a simple
review OF evidence, and citation OF
parallel cases. Geo. L. Farnum, Esq,
OF Norway, was atty for plaintiff and j.
& E. NJ. Rand Tor defendants.
Carried up on question OF law.
Wednesday afternoon No. 23l, Curtis
et al vs.. Dunn was presented TO jury.
No. PSI, Davis 5. Curtis ct al Va. Ella
NJ. DUMP. This is a real action for pos
session OF a certain farm situated in
Sumner to foreclose mortgage of S340
which is owned by these plaintiffs. II
appears that the farm in dispute was for
merly owned by A. X. Parlin, who mort
gagged it TO Seth S. Stetson April 10, 1870
then said A. X. Parlin decided by war
rantee deed, subject to said mortgage, TO
Susannah X. Harper Sept. 10, II (this
deed is not recorded but it is admitted
that Seth S. Stetson had actual notice of
III; said Susannah X. Harper mortgaged
back to said Parlin same day for $3.50;
then said Parlin assigned this second
to Joseph A. Noyes and George
Berry Oct. 25Lh, 1873, and ii has come by
assignment into the hands of these plain
tiffs; then said Parlin Nov. IL, 1875, quit
claimed to Seth S. Stetson, in considera-
ton of the giving up by said Stetson of
the first mortgage and notes held by said
Stetson against him, and the mortgage
and notes were in fact so given up end
delivered to said Parlin by S.etson and
same day said Sletson decided by war
ranty decd to Ella NJ. Dunn, this defend
ant. The plaintiffs claim that by the |
giving up of the first note and mortgage |
that the second mortgage is let IN and
has become The first and only mortgage