Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1880-03-16

assessors see At to tax lands, which are
owned by non-resiients, to the tenants,
then although the tenant may be person
ally liable for the payment of the tax, yet
the land Is not subject to any lien, when
taxed to the tenant, and cannot be sold
legally for such tax, for the language of
the statute Is that there is lien "for all
taxes legally assessed on real estate belong
ing to resident proprietors," aud which
means o,cned by resident proprietors,-
and as the tenant Is not the owner, and as
the land does not "belons" 10 him, II Is
not subject to the lien. Also the defense
claimed the proceedings are fatally defect
i've In many other respects, and that the
title cannot be sustained. A tender of the
tax, cost and interest, had been deposited
with the Clerk OF Courts. AFTER the evil
deuce was all out, the case was made "law
on report" aud goes to the Law Court
Perry. Foster, Hazen.
No. 222.-Gcorgia Barden VS.. VIM. Doug
! HISS. HIS was al tCtiOu VI tiIsPaSr
defendent as Sheriff for the act Of his dep
uty, A. b. Goodwin, In attaching a piano
claimed as the property of the plaintiff, the
same having been attached on writs against
plaintiffs husband rs his property by the
creditors of j. f. Bardcn. After the plain
tiir's evidence was all out and during the
progress of the defense II came out that at
the time of the attachment, the deputy was
the deputy of J. W. Written and not of
VIM. Douglass. BY the def'ts pleadings
they had admitted the taking by the depu-
ty as the deputy of Douglass, and PLAINTIFFS
counsel claimed that def't was estopped
from denying this fact. The case was with
drawn from the jury and was carried to
the Law Court on report.
Hammons. Frye.
Foster. Black.
No. 2g6.-Alouzo X. Dimmock vs.. Frank
l.. Willis. Parties live Mt West Paris.
Plaintiff claims 10 hold defendant for board
of one OF his workmen in his mill. for II
weeks at s275 per week He claims 1t
was q special contract by defendant to see
him paid. and that he boarded the work
man. Geo NJ. Littlcheld, by virtue OF such
contract This the defendant squarely
denied, and claimed the testimony OF the
plaintiff was false. There were several wit
nesscs on the part OF the plaintiff tending
TO corroboratc his testimony, but the jury
weighed the evidence instead of the num-
Der OF witnesses. and returned verdict
for defendant The plaintiff files motion
| for new trial, and carries the case 10 the
Law Court, as being against the evidence
SwaScy, Benson. Foster
Friday morning the Grand Jury came
in and reported ten indictments, as fol-
lows:
State OF Maine vs.. William billiard.
burglary and Larceny. Plead guilty and
sentenced to two years In State Prison.
State OF Maine W. Jonathan Littieticld.
| Indecent assault. Aver Ciiiord.
| state Ol Maine W. iillhih E'''
Common Seller.
| State OF Maine VS.. Same.
Drinking house aud tipping shop.
State OF Maine ". James +. Osgood.
Adultery.
State of Maine W. Jason Russell.
Perjury.
State of Maine VS.. Inhabitants OF hcwry.
| Defective highway.
! state OF Maine VS. Isaac ID. Fuller and
George A. Russell.
Burglary and larceny.
State OF Maine VS.. Same.
Receiving and concealing stolen goods.
Isaac ID. Fuller pleads guilty and senten-
ced TO States Prison for one year.
Saturday morning, case No. 1873 was
put on trial, and had not gone to the jury
at noon, Monday. The case is
Moses Chesiey vs.. John Martin et al,
appellants.
Question of title to real estate.