Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1878-09-24

Paris. jonas Bi>hre
Woodstock. Augustus Biiiirs1.
FryebutS, Phl!UtIcA a bradley.
Green good, kmgsJItJ / Bnsui.
Oxford. Morris Clark.
Denmark, Joseph w. Colby.
Paris, Joseph II. Durham.
Canton, j. Herman French.
Norway, VIM. Frost. I'd.
SECOND PANEL.
Bethel, ID. Milton Grover. Foreman.
Waterford. VIM. 7. Greene.
Hanover. Jesse b. Howe.
Mexico, Benz amin +. Leaviit.
Mason, Nathan G. Mills.
Sumner, Ira Palmer, Jr.
Hebron, l. z. Packard.
Dixfeld. Thomas Powers.
Hartford. c. l.. Thomas.
Hiram. Enoch NJ. Treadwell.
Rumford. Patrick II. Virgin.
Upton. Jonathan p. West.
SUPERNUMERARIKs.
Ro1bury. J. l.. Weeks.
Porter. Daniel Wentworth.
Peru, Otis Wyman.
Bethel. Hiram Young.
Calling docket and the assigning OF
cases occupied the remaining forenoon
Cases assigned for first day had all
been settled. and court adjourned for
wan, OF grist to grind.
Wednesday forenoon was occupied in
trying No. 80, Simmons vs.. Simmons.
Samuel Simmons VS.. VIM. Simmons, action oi
trover brought TO recover the value Of two notes
OF aly dollArs each, with interest, from July 1878
The notes in question were given BY DR.. swasey OF
Canton, 10 VIM Simmons for a moving machine
which pin. claims belonged to him, and that the
deft brought him the notes but finally retained
them to get them changed and made payable to
Samuel Simmons, and that he never got them
changed nor returned them to the pln but convert
cd them 10 his own use.
Verdict for plG., sli9.cO.
Andrews. sWasey'
The afternoon was spent as was that
preceding, for the same cause. A good
number OF cases bad been assigned. but
they were all disposed Of without TO
course TO the jury.
Thursday morning, case No. III. Thos.
NJ. Croker ct al Hxr's, VS.. Miles Standish
was put upon trial.
The plaintiffs, Thomas N. Croker and Alyaf
Black are executors the estate OF Thomas
Croker, deceased, and this WAS suit against the
defendant, who lives in Flagstaff, In the County
of Somerset, upon a note of hand dated February
l, 1874 for o., 500. Upon this note, from time 70
time, between the date and the time Of the docease
Of Thomas Crocker, Aug. 2, 1872, defendant had
made six payments three Of which were proved to
be endorsed in defendants hand writing; and
Nov. rs, 1874, AFTER the decease Of Mr.. Croker
the defendant had paid one thousand dollars tC
the executors, TO be applied on the note, making
in all some % 300 that had been paid on said note
The defense set up WAS that at tho time Of the
giving OF said note special agreement In wiring
was made and signed by Thomas Croker, II
which 1t was stated and agreed that the consider
alton OF said note TO cover certain other notes
and obligations between the parties, and thai
when those notes and obligations should be paid
then the note in suit should be null and void
This paper WAS introduced in evidence by defend
ant, who claimed that II had been entirely forgot
ten for more than thirty years, and that all tn
payments made by the defendant had been unde
a mistake, and that this paper which had beef
standing thirty years, was evidence OF such facts
Also, in defense that the note was barred by the
| statute of limitation. The plaintiffs answered
the propositions of the defendant by claiming
that the burden of provf was on the defendant u
show tina the note was not TO be paid, and that
was absurd to suppose that both parties could
forget the existence OF the agreement INTRODUCED
by defendant, and il was maintained by the PLAIN
tits that there was sufficient evidence on the fac
of the note in the handwriting Of the defendant
10 show that within four years from the time TN
note was given, the parties met and all notes anC
obligations named in said agreement were cancel
ed, and this note was TO be considered the suosist
ing indeb tedness between the parties. In supper
OF this was shown the following significant words
beneath the signature on the note, and four year
| after its date viz. "This note Ii due Thoma
Croker. NJ. So The defendant was unable Il
account for this memorandum, and which he &C
knowledged to be in his handwriting. Many let
| tiers from defendant were introduced and read h
the Jury, in all which the most friendly relation
were expressed as existing between the parties
| and in nearly all, this defendant acknowledge