Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1880-09-28


Sumner, Elisha s Bisbee.
Grafton, Otis W. Brooks.
Gilead. NJ. p Burbank.
Paris. Iemuel B. Carter.
Lowell, Warren Charles.
Hiram, John Clark, il.
Paris, Charles II. Clifford.
Hebron, Hiram NJ Everett
Dixfeld, Nathaniel J. Fletcher.
S,oneham, William Cannon.
Canton, Rodolphus +. Hathaway.
Norway. Robert Hall.
Oxford, Francis Holden.
Hartford. Cyrus M. Irish.
Waterford, William W. kilbourne.
Newry, Edwin K. Lane.
Buck6eld Nahum Moore.
Norway. Osgood Perry.
Bethel. Samue, ID. Philhrook.
Fryeburg. Asa, o. Pike.
Rum ord, Fred. 4. Porter.
Robury, Charles II Philbrick.
Bethel. Ebenezer Richardson.
Porter. Henry II. Sawyer.
Woodstock. Stillmar q. Wyman.
Denmark. Jerard +. Berry.
Mexico, Charles A. Richards.
Owing to the State fair last week,
Court was somewhat neglected by the
usual attendants, and but three cases
have been tried as follows
No. l29. Reuben l.. Andrews ". John
Head. Parties live 10 Sumner Plaintiff
sues 10 recover for labor in summer or
1879 on defendants farm, claiming about
one dollar and half per day, the first part
OF the season without any special contract
As 10 price; and the latter half by virtue of
a special contract as both parties admit.
Defense set up that plaintiff was claim
ing much more than the services were
worth. and that there was special con-
tract for the first part Of the summers
work for sevcnty.hve cents per day, a
well as for the last part at one dollar and
INV per day. Verdict for plaintiff, S54 %.
Black. Foster. Davis.
No. To-. John Heald vs.. Reuben L.
Andrews. This was 4 cross action be-
tween same parties as the foregoing
action. Plaintiff sues defendant for GER
tain articles which he claims he furnished
him during the time defendant worked for
plaintiff: also for rent OF real tate which
plaintiff had bargained TO defendant, and
which he claimed defendant had failed TO
purchase, and the plaintiff sold TO another
party.
The defendant denies that he failed 10
carry out the bargain for the purchase oil
the farm, but claims the deed was made TO
the third party by mutual consent OF plain
ti.f aud defendant After the evidence was
all out the case was withdrawn from the
Jury, and adjusted between the parties.
Ludden. Black, Foster
No. 40. David NJ. Sturtevant 81 al rs.
Bethel Steam Mill Co. This was an
action 10 recover balance OF a claim of
sl5j.O 90 on a logging contract in season
OF 1872 in the Achison and Gilmanton
Grant; also SIG, claimed to have been
paid by mistake for Stumpage by the
plaintiff at the settlement in 1878; also $50
for supplies turned over To the defendant
as plaintiffs allege, about the same time;
an item of So, which plaintiffs claim they
were charged with, but which they deny
having received at settlement; and use of
oxen at defendants mill amounting to
$50, and interest on about s92, amount
ing in the whole TO $4,000.
The defendants resist the claim Of the
plaintiffs at every point and on every item.
They claim a settlement made July 18th.
1879, embraced all the matters now in dis
pute, and receipts and itemized accounts
are produced, As we'll as the books OF the
corporation. These receipts and accounts
show transactions in logging operations
for the winter of ~, with these plaintiffs,
amounting 10 over twenty-five thousand
dollars, and defendants claim that the item
for pine lumber was taken into account
and paid for at the settlement when the
receipts were signed; the plaintiffs deny
this, and claim that this item as well as
the next two items were TO be the subject
OF future adjustment, and memorandum
is produced on Que Of the accounts that
specify this to be SO; but the defendants
say this was written by their book keeper,
who had no authority to make such an ar
rangement, and that it was prior to the
settlement named, and that the great lapse
Of time since then and before the CON-
mencement OF the suit, sustains their po-
sition. As to the supplies, defendants say
they never had them, and nom the testi-
mony il seems the plaintiffs failed to show
that they ever came into the possession OF
defendants. The charge of s3e in the writ
defendants say, comes with poor grace
from parties who kept no memorandum or
books at all in twenty-five thousand dol
lar transaction, and who can only claim 1t
from memory; whereas, on the contrary,
the defendants books are produced and
show the item regularly charged at the
time. For the use Of the oxen, II Of any
value to defendants, they are willing to
pay, although there was an arrangement
by which they were to be kept In the sea-