Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1881-03-22
CurGr NOrrs.

In the Thsl OF putting oh' ~ iaiSo ="
paper last week. few errors appeared IN
our court record. 4 new Grand Jury will
be empaneled for the next September
Term. as we wrote. and not after the
September Term. as the types made US
say.
Harrison Harvey of Dixheld, was put
down as a butcher and farmer instead of
teacher and farmer Mr. Harvey IL
one of the most experienced teachers in
eastern Oxford He has taught 81 terms
Of school, several OF which were during
the past winter.
The December Term of Cour, for Ok
ford County was abolished by the Legs
lature Just before it adjourned.
Our Senators, Judge Walker, and Hon.
Geo u. Bisbee, returned from Augusta,
and were in the Court room, Saturday.
where they received cordial greetings and
hearty congratulations on the success of
their winters work.
ANOTHER NEW LAWYER.
Mr.. Albro f.. Chase, Master of Port
land High School, was admitted to the
bar, last week. Mr.. Chase is a son OF
f.. z. Chase esq, and was born in Paris.
where he resided for many years. He
has read law in Portland offices. and has
done considerable business in that line
during his spare moments.
COURT RECORD.
Below is a record OF the cases as tried
last week. Monady afternoon and Tues
day were idle hours; but Wednesday
morning business was resumed in earnest,
and the res, Of the week was full of
work. Great interest was manifested IN
the Barden case. tried Friday and Satur-
dav, and the Court room was filled with
spectators, many of whom were ladies'
This was the most closely contested case
We have seen tried for many term.
No. Ie3. Edward +. Morse V. Noble +.
Small
Paiulin resides In Paris, defendant in
Audoyer. THIS wss an action on promi-
Sory note OF $50 The defence sctup was
/ that since the action wa brought the note
has been paid, aud receipt was intro
duccd hy the defendant signed by the plain
/ tn wherein lie stated he had received full
pay OF the note The plaintiff replied by
way OF special plea that although the re-
ccipt was given +. w, given upon a con
d.,iou precedent, which condition was
that the cost OF ,ui, should bc paid by the
defendant. aud which special condition has
not been complied with, aud tina: not dol
/ lar has been in fact received by the plain
| tn. aud that he was not bound by any
such receipt Alter the case was out the
Court suggested that the ease 20 forward
( 10 the Law Court FOR decision on the legal
rights OF the parties, on the pIeadings
/ Foster. Frye, Davis.
No. 92i. Martha Z. Damn ". James A.
( Rideou,.
This was an action on account annexed
for certain articles furnished by the alleged
agent OF the plaintiff whose residence was
In Aroostook County. 10 the defendant who
also lives 10 that County, while working
under contract for cutting aud clearing
land. The agent only Of the plaintiff put
10 an appearance n the trial, and the de-
| PENDANT cOntcndcd that lie did the work and
labor for the person who now claims 10
be the agent OF the plaintiff, and that he
never knew any other party, and that he
never had the amount OF goods sued for,
aud that what he did have he more than
paid for in labor. Verdict for defendant
Jrffies. Swasey.
No. 26j-John {. Dearborn VS.. Thomas
| &. Quincy, et. al.
The parties all reside In Canton. Action
was upon promlssory note for s9sj. given
March 80, l.-7, signed by Heury c. Quincy
and Virgil Cole. Two years interest has
been Endorsed on the back OF the note, paid
by Quincy. The said Quincy was princI-
pal and Cole was surety on the note. The
defense was that when the note became
due In March, 1879, Quincy went TO the
plaintiff Ia Harlow's store in Canton, and
paid him the interest FOR the year that had
then expired. and also one dollar bonus
money for which the plaintiff agreed 10
| wait one year. and that thus the surety,
! Cole, was released. The plaintiff denies
that ever any agreement was made TO ex-
tend the note for one year, and that the
dollar was laid down by Gurney after the
interest had been counted out and that he
Immediately followed him out into the street
within five minutes and rendered II back 10
Quincy who refused 10 take II back, and
told the plaintiff If he thought he could col
lect the note 10 sue as soon as he pleased
II came ont on the stand from Quincy that
he laid the dollar down for plaintiff in order
that Cole, the sou-in.law OF Quincy, might
be released from the note; that he knew
wha. he did IL for all the time; that 1t was
put down with the interest. The plaintiff
claims the transaction was fraudulent on
the part OF Quincy, and that he never ac-
cepted the dollar IS any consideration for
any agreement TO extend the note; that he
had called on Cole before the note became
due or about that time, and that he was re-
quested to sue Quincy; but that he did not
want the note sued, &c; that twice the
plaintiff called on Cole before the interest
was paid, and when the plaintiff learned
The real object OF what had been done by
Quincy in regard 70 the dollar, he again
Immediately called on Cole who then