Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1882-10-03
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
SEPT. TERM, 1882.

SEPT. TERM, 1882.
Hon. c. w. WALTON, Justice.
James 8. Wright, esq, CLERK.
Miss Abbie Pulsifer, Reporter.
| OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE.
William Douglass, Sheriff.
Jordan Stacy, Deputy,
James L. Parker, "
Albert b. Bassett, O.
w. A. Barrows, Messenger.
No. SOC. N. T. Shaw VS.. William Chase
appellant. on trial last Monday.
This was an an action Of trespass for
taking away sleigh that the plaintifi
claimed he bid off at auction. Alfred Cole
administrator, was selling personal prop
erty and one Themes put sleigh up for
sale at same time, and it was knocked
off to Shaw, for 81. Chase claimed that
\ the bid was his, and the auctioueer finding
that there were two bids for 81 afterwards
put the sleigh up again and sold 1t to Chase.
Plaintiff claims that the sleigh was his,
under the first sale. Testimony was con-
f,ictlpg in regard to the action OF Shaw,
at time of second sale. The jury gave
special verdict, finding that he did
not object to the second sale, but stood
by, silent and witnessed it. The Judge
ruled that he was therefore estopped from
claiming the property at later date. Car
ried upon exceptions.
Brigham, Bisbee Hersey.
Other cases tried were:
No. 264. Inhabitants of Peru VS.. Eliza A.
Poland.
Action by plaintiff town to recover bill
OF slS3 against the defendant, being for
psuper supplies furnished defendant In
1879 and 1881. The defendant is married
woman whose husband. Alfred Poland, de-
serted her prior to her falling into distress
and receiving supplies from the town. The
statute which the plaintiff invokes reads
thus town, which has incurred ex-
pense for the support of a pauper
may recover 1t Of him, his executors or adj
illustrators, in an action or assumpsit."
The defense set up Is that the action should
have been brought against the husband,
and that the woman is not the pauper but
the husband. The plaintiff replies TO that
by saying the woman has property, the
husband has none. and has deserted the
wife and gone beyond the limits Of the
State. After the evidence was out the
case was reported TO the Law Court
Foster & Herrck. Swasey.
No. 29i Granville l.. Reed VS.. Azel W.
Faunce ct al.
Parties live In Norway. Plaintiff claims
he sold the defendants a stag hog in the
fall OF 1851 for sS0ll The defense Is that
instead of the sale being of hog 1t was OF
AIS pounds Of pork at cents per pound !;
and that the meat when dressed was strong
and unit 10 eat and that il was worthless.
The plaintiff replies that If the meat when
dressed was strong il was not his fault,
that the rule OF law cdredt emptOr,-let the
purchaser beware, applies, and that this
is not case OF the sale Of provisions, but
OF the sale of merchandise and no legal
defense has been shown In all the testimo-
ny why he should not recover. The jury
returned a verdict for plaintiff for sell.
Holt, Bearcc.
Foster. Swasey.
No. 212 Winfield S. Buchanan VS.. VIM.
Ii. Brigham.
plaintiff sues defendant for personal as
sault and battery upon himself, Jan'y &c,
lSs2, at Buckfleld. The case developed
the facts that plaintiff about Jan'y ., 1882,
had snapped horses; the defendant claimed
that plaintiff had cheated him and misrep-
resented the value and condition OF his
horse at the time OF the exchange; that on
the Goth OF Jan'y he went TO the village and
there found the horse which he had ex
changed with the plaintiff, harnessed into
the plaintiffs sleigh and he proceeded TO
unharness the horse and rendered the boot
and the other horse back TO the plaintiff.
when the plaintiff came out and encoun-
tered him and general fight took place,
and whatever he did against the plaintiff
was done in self.defense. On the other
baud, the plaintiff testities and brings for
ward witnesses to show that the defendant
had done nothing to rescind the trade pre-
vious 10 this day when the trouble arose,
and that 1t was an unreasonable time after
the trade to claim a RECESSION, and that no
tender OF money or horse had been made
prior TO the trouble; that he went out OF
the store in the village and found the de-
PENDANT embarrassing his horse, and he
Immediately resisted the invasion of bis
rights, that the defendant choked him and
struck him, and both held on to the horse
and all three went down, that in this he
was injured and brings this action. The
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for
$500.
Foster & Herrick. Brigham,
Swasey.
No. 259. William II. Brigham VS. Win
field S. Bucknam.
This was cross action and was tried
with No. 272. Brigham sued Bucknam
for fraud in selling him the horse, in con-
troversy.
Verdict for plaintiff, $1,000.
BRIGHAM, Bisbee 4 Hersey.
Swasey.
No. 243. Geo. II. Brigham VS.. John NJ.