Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1882-09-26

w
wentworth, narville A., Brownfeld.
Col. Edwards OF Bethel and Messrs. Ev-
erett Of Norway, Holmes Of Oxford, Evans
OF Fryeburg, and McIntire OF Waterford
were excused the first day, leaving the Sec
oud panel two men short.
The Grand Jury came In Thursday after
ternoon and reported these seven indict-
ments:
State VS.. Stephen G. Packard,
EmbeZZle ment.
State VS.. William billiard,
Rape.
State VS.. Edgar d. Wing and Lucy A.
Royal,
Adultery.
State VS.. William Johnson,
Adultery.
State vs.. Elbridge G. Linscott,
Common Seller.
State VS.. William Brooks,
Common Seller.
State VS.. Stephen T. Jewett,
False Pretenses.
The Grand Jury was in almost continu-
Gus session from the first day OF Court IN
I'll the rendering Of these indictments. IL
is seldom that term occurs where the
Grand Jury has so little spare time. Mr..
A. S. Kimball closes his active duties as
County Attorney, with this term, though
his term Of Office does not expire until Jan.
1888. Mr.. Kimball during his official ca
reer has been very efficient officer. lie
has administered the criminal affairs OF the
County in q judicious aud economical
manner-neglecting nothing that seemed
to him important In tending to prevent
crime, but setting himself firmly against
personal prosecutions, that showed emily
spite or malice. Mr.. Kimball has very
properly settled with many parties who
were under indictment without the formal
ity OF trial, urging all to plead guilty and
thus save the County the expense OF long
criminal trials, at the same time Furnishing
the offenders as the law demands. Those
who have associated with Mr.. Kimball In
his official duties only regret that his po-
litical views are such as TO place him per-
petually with the minority party, and thus
retire him to private life.
No. 40. Albion R. Buchanan vs.. John Head,
was the first case put on trial ,-Wednes-
day morning.
This action was commenced by Buck.
nam to collect from Head sum to COM
pensate him for services rendered, for val.
ne Of property furnished by him and for
money advanced, while the two were en-
gagged in buying and butchering In the town
Of Sumner. The question Of partnership
and an attempt at settlement between the
parties was thoroughly discussed, and the
case was closely contested throughout.
The jury returned verdict for plaintiff Of
s4S.5O, leaving the partnership affairs, as
we understand it, still unsdjusted.
Foster & Herrick. Swasey.
No. 200. Daniel A. Robbins vs.. John n.
Babb, was the second case tried.
Robbins married Babb's daughter and
went to live with his parents-in-law. He
claims that he was to care for them, and
to have the farm when the old people were
through with 1t, as compensation, though
NO writings were made out. Babb claims
that Robbins took the farm on halves, and
shat he worked with that understanding
while on the farm. After some unpleas.
antness, Robbins deserted the farm and
his wife obtained q divorce. He then sued
Babb for services on the farm while he
worked on same and for various items Of
expense which would naturally arise under
such family relations. Mr.. Bsbb fled an
account in set of as well as endeavored to |
show q partnership in the transactions.
The jury returned verdict for plaintiff of
e25.7O.
I.&H. A. Randall, Ludden,
assisted by Foster. Jeffrey,
assisted by Swasey.
Court held an evening session Friday,
lasting till ten o'clock.
No. l39. Hiram Everett vs.. Benjamin Co.
nant, was taken up.
This Is one of those cases which so OF
% occur on disputed timber land. Conaut's