Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1880-03-23
s. ]. COURT-MARCH TERM,
A. ID. 1880.
CHARLES w. WALTON, Justice.
JAMES S. WRIGHT, Clerk.
J. ID. PULsrrER. Reporter.
WILLIAM DOUGLASS. Sheriff.

The following cases were disposed OF
during the week:
No. lS3-Moses Chcsley vs.. John Martin
ct al. These parties reside in Oxford. The
action is repleyin for wood, but the real
question Is the title TO the land upon which
It was cut. The plaintiff is the owner OF
what Is known as the Cedar Lot, and the
def owns the lot adjoining. The real
question was rs 10 the true dividing line.
Both parties claim title to their respective
lots through sundry mcsae conveyances
from the heirs OF Andrew Craige, an an
cient proprietor OF large tracts of land In
Oxford their titles extending back TO 1918.
There were about dozen deeds on each
side In the case. and several very ancient
plans by Alexander Greenwood, David
Moves and others. There have been three
lawsuits previous TO this in regard To this
line. and several witnesses known as the
coolest inhabitantauts, were upon the
stand upon the one side or the other The
surveyor. Daniel 5. Hastings OF Bethel,
had been appointed by the Court at a for
mer term, had spent several weeks upon
the premises in running the lines, and those
OF adjoining lots, and exhibited one of the
finest plans ever produced in court, upon
which not only the lines claimed by the
several parties, but the topography OF the
country was delineated, and gave the jury
a very clear idea OF the points in dispute.
The defendant had vouched in his grantors,
aud Geo. p. Whitney appeared and took
upon himself the defense as one OF the
warrantors, and the case excited consider
able interest on that account, rs Mr.. Whit
ney and Mr.. Chesley had been political
competitors In the last campaign. The
case was very thoroughly and ably tried on
both sides, lasting three days. The jury
returned a verdie; for the defendant.
Black & Holt, Walker. Foster.
No. l2l.-Ephram S. Colby vs.. Lucy l.
Applsby. Plaintiff resides in Massachu
sets and def't. in Waterford. The case
has been once before tried and the Jury did
not agree. The action is on note ofsl, 800,
and the plaintiff claims to hold the defen-
dant As endorser ofsaid note. Ii seems that
the plaintiff sold the defendant certain prop
erty and the notes in trial were turned out
in Boston in payment. The defense set up
is that the defendant never intended to in
dorse the note but simply TO transfer the
same 10 plaintiff, and that such was the ex-
press agreement is set up on her part; that
il was agreed that she should not be hold
en- but that her name was put on to pass
the title thereto. This the plaintiff denies,
and several witnesses were produced, who
claimed 10 have heard the talk in the con-
veyance's Office in Boston. The defense
attacks those witnesses and says they are
real estate brokers who are interested In
such matters, and whose credibility is ques-
toned because they heard too much, and
remember too well all that took place three
years ago in an Office where they have
desk only, and whose business is to make
bogus mortgages, puff real estate beyond
its value for the sake Of the commission,
sc. The Jury return a verdict for the
defendant.
Kimball. Bion Bradbury.
J. S. Morse, of Boston.
No. ll6.-Ezra Marshall VS.. Cyrus Per
kins. Executor. This case was tried at
September term, and resulted in disagree
ment of the Jury. The suit is upon note
of hand given by Sebra Durham, Sept. /,
1851, to his wife for $500, payable after his
decease. Sebra Durham died in 1875, and
his wife had previously died in 1865, and
the note in suit is claimed on the part OF
the defense to have been reckoned into a
settlement made away back in 1865 when
the heirs met at the house Of n. l.. Mar
shall, in Paris, with the administrator,
Thos. II. Brown, and tie appraisers on the
estate of the deceased wife. The plaintiffs
claim that the wife had in her lifetime Civ
en- the note to Eliza Marshall; and Eliza
M3rsnaii hot ociuS II TIC sStsiSineheis vas |
not taken into the settlement. After de-
cease of Sebra Durham in 1875 and before |
the appointment ofthe executor, the origi-
nal note was presented to Cyrus Perkins
for payment, who refused. Suit was COM
menced and after two terms non-suit was !
entered. Then without any new demand
or presentation Of the claim, this action
was commenced by Ezra Marshall against
the Executor and tried as before stated.
The case came up before this term, and as
the defense claims that the suit can not be
inasmuch as no notice was Civ
en-, as the Statute requires thirty days be-
fore bringing an action against an execu-
tor; the case was reported to the Law
Court on the question Of the sufficiency Of
the notice, after the determination Of the
Court on this one point, and If the Court '