Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1880-02-11

An Interesting Law Case.
The Law suit. Granville W. Moor. and
ID. B. Brown vs.. s. W. Tarbox, which has
been tried before the referees, Jos. Baker.
ESQ.,, Of Augusta, ard Emery O. Bean. Esq.
OF Readfeld. was closed Monday afternoon
1t has occasiOned much interest in this place.
and briefly stated the testimony is as follows !:
The plaintiffs claim that in the Spring of
io they made arrangements to build house
for the defendant by contract, receiving $1,000,
and the cd house which was standing on the
location of the new one. They were to use
as much of the old house as could be worked
into the new, and dispose of the remainde.
As they chose. They claim there was no
written specification or written agreement
They were to use the Lapham house as a mod
ell for the inside, and Smith house for the
outside After these arrangements had been
effected. the defendant desired some very
costly changes to be made. viz: The roof of
the house and ell TO be slated instead OF
singled, and the buildings to be moved ten
feet farther forward than the agreement called
tor. The date of this was May 81. The
plaintiffs thea said they would not proceed
unless assured of day pay. The defendant
said he would not build, but when shown that
the plaintiffs had ordered most of the timber
consented. and said, We'll, go ahead. AMI
III make it all right with you at the end"
Accordingly they proceeded with the work;
purchased all the materials; sold or used
the old lumber and materials: hired and paid
all the workmen. The finish of the house
built is different from the one first contem-
plated. bed rooms and the front entry being
finished in hard wood, whereas, they were,
according 20 the contract, to be finished in
pine. The outside is also much more expen-
sive than first desired. This is the testimony
as sworn to by both of the plaintiffs. The
remainder of the testimony on this side con-
sisted of conversations which parties claimed
to have had with defendant when he said he
did not know what kind Of house he wanted
at first, and made it up as he went along;
also destinations of carpenters as to the cost
of this house over the one first planned. They
all agreed that the difference was from $1,000
to Sl4OO.
The defendants testimony was: He had
previously built several houses. always pur-
chased his own materials, and hired and paid
his labOrers. At this time. after talking the
plans all over, he let the contract to the
plaintiffs as stated, but wrote out an agree
ment containing general description of
what the house should be, and read this, in
the presence of his wife, to the plaintiffs.
Hev aBFeeu 10 tlls, put ulu not sign IL De-
cause the defendant did not ask them to, re-
lying upon their honor From examination
of plaintiffs it was found that the house is
built according to the written description,
with only two changes, the additions to the
contract being extras for which the defendant
stands ready to pay
In the conversation OF May 81, the defend
ant denied IN toto any remarks which might
have been inferred as giving up the contract
As he claims he gave up the idea OF moving
the house, and told the plaintiffs he would
pay the difference between Singing and
stating. lie CLAIMS to have kept an account
of all extra work and to be Wiling to pay Tor
this whatever may be assessed by referees.
lie paid money to the plaintiffs whenever they
called tor any, ana always wrote the receipt
'Jor building house by contract, which the
senior member OF the firm signed inns was
done two DAYS before the house was fnished
The plaintiffs claim not to have read the re-
ceipt, only glanced at the figures and never
to have noticed the words by contract.
There are eight receipts written IN the same
manner.
The plaintiffs had the house insured three
times after they claim the contract was gwen
up. and the policies run to the hrm OF Moore
< Brown. The dates OF the poiicies are July
=, Oct. =, and Sept. OF the same year, and
each one contained these words Sol many
dollars, on frame mouse ana en- Thieh Mey
are bntfdihg 6y contract tof Stephen ".
1arbor. The plaintiffs ciaim that NJ the
time they were solicited to insure the mouse.
they were very busy and thoughtlessi told
the agent to insure the house and write the
policy as he did on the Lapham house, which
they had recently built by contract. Ihey
never had seen the policies AFTER they were
made out The insurance agent D. >. MaX-
cy, saws they positively gave MN Instructions
IN making GU, 'ne poiI's anu '"'' "e '""''
kept their pollcies IN ms once.
Further evidence tor the defendant was vi
two painters to whom either Moore or Brown
had told that they were building the mouse by
contract. This was late IN the 1aii OF ,he
same year. Another witness CLAIMED tnat
one of the plaintiffs had told MN tnev were
to build house by contract something IKE
the lapham house INSIDE, ana something IKE
the Smith house outside, with front eh'r!
like gentlemans IN fHtston. lnis Ifont
entry referred to was hnished IN haro Wow
iae P'"i"',n' - ., o:'.:.,sI .o,..ao,
ish was to be used by tne original CONTRACT
All the workmeh testined tnat they VIZ
hired, paid and superintehded ny pia'n'."s.
Those who purchased Ola ma'eria' oous"'
OF and paid pialntins. .,
'l.a