Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1881-09-27

inferential; and the defendants ciaim That
the collectors books were lost or destroyed
Intentionally.
The jury returned a verdict for the de-
PENDANTS. Frink,
A. Eaton, Strout & Holmes,
f.. A. Johns. Bisbee.
No. 2S2. Elhanan B. Foster VS.. Andrew
n. Stowe. This is an action on the case
for the value of a two year old heifer alleg-
ed to be of the vslue of $50 which II is alleg-
cd was caught by the defendent In bear
trap set on his own land in the summer OF
1875.
| The plaintiff has back pasture contain
ing about thirty acres which lies on the
edge OF the mountain between Sunday and
Bear River in the town OF Newry; the pas
ture Is not fenced. The defendant owns
large tract OF wild land adjoining, which
has never been cleared, and is covered
with large and small growth OF wood aud
timber. From the edge OF this pasture
to the place where the trap was set was
nearly mile, and the plaintiffs cattle were
trespassing As had been their custom on
| the wild lands of the defendant. The de-
( PENDANT was the person who set the trap
near the base OF a ragged ledge and in the
precise Spo; where the defendant had
caught two bears the fal! before, and on
the land OF this defendant and about a mile
| from his own pasture.
The defendant claimed that he was in
the use offs legal right in the setting ofthe
| trap and furthermore that he was In the
exercise of ordinary care, and that 1t was
/ in a reasonable spot, as the previous
| history OF the place showed, and that IL
was where bears were, and cattle ought
not 10 Be, and ifthe plaintiff had used a
reasonable diligence in keeping his cattle
/ on nj, own land a. he had on the setting
OF the trap, no such accident would have
occurred.
The testimony showed that defendant
aud his brother, Melvin Stowe, are the
greatest bear hunters or the age, they hav-
/ ing captured over one hundred and seventy
siGce their boyhood.
The Jury came in Tuesday morning
with verdict for the defendant. Carried
to Law Court.
Gibson, Swasey. Foster.
The following case was heard by Judge
Peters:
| No 30. Inhabitants of Browniield v.
Inhabitants OF Fryeburg. This was pc
ti,ion FOR review.
Il seems that in 1876 the town OF Frye
burg brought suit for pauper supplies
against the town OF BrowuAeld, alleging
tbs, one Georglana Booth had fallen Into
distress In the town Of Frycburg and relief
had been granted, and alleging that the
pauper', settlement was In the town OF
I Browutield through 4 marriage with one
/ Frank Booth whose settlement was In that
town
When the case came on for trial At the
| Dec. Term in 1876, at Fryeburg, instead OF
pleading 10 the merits OF the case, the
counsel for the town OF Brownfeld. ]. b.
Eaton. demurred 70 the plaintiffs writ, and
the cour, overruled the demurrer and or
dered Judgment for the plaintir. The de-
/ PENDANTS counsel claimed the right 10 plead
anew 10 the merits but the court ruled 9th
erwise, and exceptions were taken and 1t
went up 20 the Law Court and the rulings
/ OF the court were sustained, and then judg-
ment was entered up for the plaintiff
town.
This petition Is brought 10 obtain re-
versal OF that Judgment on the ground that
IS the petitioners claim, the marriage was
obtained by or through the agency OF the
town OF Fryeburg. 1t seems that Booth
was arrested on bastardy process In May,
1878. and went 10 Conway, y. H., aud had
q marriage ceremony performed, but never
lived with Georgisua afterwards, aud 1t IS
claimed that the municipal officers OF Frye
burg were instrumental in procuring the
marriage; this IS denied on the part OF the
town Of Fryeburg and considerable evil
deuce was put in on both sides.
The court minated that the petitioners
by their demurrer in the former action
were barred, and that IL was the same as
| Judgment on the merits, and the case Is
taken 20 the full court.
Strout 4 Holmes, Foster,
Frink. Walker.
Court adjourned Monday noon for me-
mortal services, according to the procla-
nation of President Arthur.