Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1877-03-27

y. r. Trask. with the Grand jury
II. l. Hammond, Crier.
VIM. A. Barrows, Messenger.
No. 100, Moses Chesley VS.. Yetton.
These parties reside in Oxford, and the
action is for trespass TO real estate OF
which both parties claim title. Ii seems
that the defendant owns what was once
part of the Craige's land. and which had
been surveyed by one Greenwood, who
had made pan of this and other lanis
in the year 1919; the original map could
not be found but copy was introduced
by the defense made in that year The
plff claimed that The deit. should be re-
strictcd in his deed TO the number OF rods
in length on his line as named in his deed
and that no monuments could now be
found and the defense oined issue on this
point and maintained that the monuments
named in the deed by running from other
lots could be ascerlained with reasona-
BILE degree of certainty, and from certain
known corners this lot might DO found 10
hold 10 the location of where the monu-
ments once were.
Verde: for the defendant.
Hazsn. Bearce Il Burnham.
Foster.
No. 222, Stephen Gordon VS.. the town
OF Gilead.
This was an action on the case ior
damage received on a highway In The
town of Glead Jan'y Is, 1876. II was
caiued on the part of the plaintiff that
party started from Gorham, y H., on
the afternoon OF that day for ride TO
Bethel, and when the plaintiff with his
team OF two horses aud sleigh contain
ing tour persons were going down bill
near the town line between Gilead and
Bethel. his sleigh suddenly slowed into
"cut of" or deep hole on the north side
Of the road, aud ali were instantly thrown
out, and the horses escaped and ran away,
smashing up the sleigh and breaking up
things generally. The sleigh was one
which cost $500, made by Kimball oil
Portland.
The defense set up was that there was
no such detect in the highway thai there
was no notice TO the town that the sleigh
was not a stable one Tor such an occa-
sion. and that the plaintiff was not in the
exercise OF ordinary care in driving
twenty witnesses were introduced by the
defendants To sustain these several prop
ositi, rs. There wa much conflicting
testimony US To the nature OF the road.
A photograph OF the sleigh had been pro-
cured by the defendants and was put into
the case, showing it was one OF peculiar
construction. The plaintiff took issue on
all the propositions set up in defense. and
| introduced evidence 10 show that the way
had been repaired early in the morning
alter The accident, and which was denied
| by the Defendants.
The Jury, after being out about four
hours, returned with verdict for the
defen dsnls.
! A. 5. Twitchell, Gibson. Foster
No. loo, S. F G. bison V. j. w. Written.
Action on the case against the defend
ant as High Sheriff OF the County Tor the
alleged negligence oil his deputy e. NJ
Wo,mel, IN not arresting one Jhn h.
Carleton on AN execution and for not re-
farming the execution into the Clerks
office within the three months named in
| it to be returnable.
The defense was that The deputy did
arrest said Carleton on the execution ano
took him to the office OF the plaintiff who
directed the deputy 10 release him and 10
keepthe execution till something could
DO got out OF it. The defendant admitted
that the execution was not returned with
in the three months, but tina, It was no
damage to the plaintiff as the said Garlic
ton was worthless, and there was nothing
but nominal damages recoverable.
The jury returned verdict Tor one
dollar.
Gibson. Foster.
Swasey. Hammons.
No. 2ll, Reuben T. Allen v. Thomas
X. Law.
Action upon written lease to recover
rent Of steam mill in Milton Plantation
for one year. The plaintiff leased his
mill with ali the fixtures TO this defendant,
commencing Nov. /. 1873. for q term OF
three years at $500. The defendant has
never occupied the mill TO operate it. bu,
failed up. and the plaintiff alter the Sec
ond year expired let the mill to another
party.
The defense is that the plaintiff should
not recover because the defendant has not
occupied the mill, and that the plaintiff
has broken his contract by putting another
party in possession of the mill before the
expiration of the term of the lease. and
that contract is entire and that nothing is
due till the end of the three years. The
plaintiffs answer is that the contract is
severable and that he Is entitled to his
rent yearly. and that the defendant has
occupied it, and whether profitably or not