Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1882-03-28

WOuuueu anu tuTeW ncE uoWu anu useu
great personal violence upon her and In
jured her shoulder and left side.
The defendants severed in their defense,
and claimed that it was not in September,
but month earlier than the plaintiff and
her witnesses stated, and that no such as
sault as she claimed was committed, and
furthermore that, it being = month earlier.
the wife Of Whitman was confined to her
bed, not having got up from confinement
ut the birth of child, and that she was
not participation In the odense At all and
the other defendant claims that the plain
tia came TO his house armed with q Ratchet
and was attempting to ipjure . door when
he took the Ratchet away from her and she
threw herself upon the floor and was not
thrown down by him.
The jury returned . verdict OF ten dol
lars and forty cents against c. II. Whit
man, and Of not guilty against the other
defendant, who RECEIVERS costs against the
plaintiff.
Gibson, Benson,
Swasey. Foster.
No. SO. Sarah s. /. Gray v. Charles III.
lIhitmdn a ur.
This was an action Of t.espass on the
case for entering upon the dover estate OF
the plaintiff situated in Woodstock, and
depriving her of the use OF the same and
preventing her from having access to the
same as she alleges in the writ The time
alleged was between the sth and 25th days
OF August, 1879 The evidence OF the
plaintiff failed TO show any acts OF the de-
PENDANTS during the time alleged, and
motion was made by the plaintiff TO amend
the writ by inserting q count for trespass
qudre cldusem, which, being objected TO by
the defendant, the Court disallowed, and
thereupon the plaintiff excepted to the rul.
ing, aud the case was withdrawn from the
Jury and goes up TO the Law Court on ex-
ceptions.
Gibson, Foster.
Swasey.
No. 2iS. Emery " S,csu ct al V. Reu-
ben 7. Allen "a ais.
The plaintiffs sue the defendants, six IN
number, for entering mill In Milton
Plantation in April, 1879, and removing
therefrom Chase shingle machine, and
converting the same TO their own use.
1t appears that the plaintiff grantor was
Treasurer and one OF the Assessors OF
Milton in the year 1870, and obtained a
loan of $500 from the plantation with
which he purchased the machine In suit,
and with the intention OF afterwards Civ
Ing security ON the same TO the plantation
but never did so. Afterwards by suudry
conyeyauces the title came into the hands
OF these plaintiffs. The defendants claim
ing TO act In behalf OF the plantation, In
the absence OF the plaintiffs, entered the
mill and forcibly removed the machine
claiming to hold 1t for the plantation.
Verdict for the plaintiffs for sll2N.
Defendants carry the case up on motion
for new trial. Davis,
Foster. Swasey.
No. ll5. Michael Looney v. Alfred b.
Walker et VIZ.
This was an action on account annexed
for sS4 90. The parties reside in Canton
The defense set up was that nothing was
due the plaintiff inasmuch as settlement
In full had been made prior to the COM
meucement of this suit and a receipt was
put into the case.
The plaintiff replies that the defendants
sued this plaintiff before Trial Justice in
Dixtleld and recovered Judgment for 1928.
and that on that execution this plaintiff
had been arrested at Canton by the Deputy
Sheriff and to release himself he gave the
receipt In the case. II was also claimed
that at the same time suit had been
brought at Canton by this plaintiff against
these defendants-really cross actions, but
no Judgment entered up. The plaintih
claimed that the Judgment on which he
was arrested was not valid, but the Court
ruled the Judgment Of the Justice binding
and legal, and that the arrest was legal
and the only question was as TO the amount
that was due, II anything. The defense
claimed thnt a part OF the items sued Tor
We're a gifs from this plaintiff TO the de.
PENDANTS, and that by the receipt given
they had discharged their Judgment against
this plant itf and this plaintiff was estopped
from recovering in this action. There
was much conflicting testimony upon both
sides.
The Jury failed to agree.
Swasey & Gibbs. Randall
Foster.
No. 2lO. Albert D. White v. Gilman l..
Blake ct ais.
Petition for an amendment OF the rec
ords Of the Supreme Judicial Court ior
August Term, 1862, at which term judg'
ment was entered up against the DEFEND
ants on suit Of the plaintiff, then Hign
Sheriff Of this county, in which suit the
Court gave Judgment for the pl aintin Tor
s2l2 SO, and instead OF the recC To oe>ng
made up act, ording to law, showing )udg-
ment for tie penal sam Of the defenoants
bond viii CHI was 10000, judgment appears
as recor ded for only the drst named sun.
This plaintiff, since the Judgment in l'S62'
has been held and put to expense on &C.
court of the alleged delinquincies OF the
defendants, and his only remedy being by
scire facias, he asks that the records Of
twenty years ago be amended and corrected
as they should have been at that time, In
order that be may recover for the suose-
ouent damage he has been put to, and -