Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1883-03-20
FIRST PANEL

FIRST PANEL.
Woodstock, Isaac W. Andrews.
Mexico, ID. B. Austin.
Paris, Ira Bartlett.
Sumner, Isaac BOnney.
Bethel, william +. Brown.
Lowell, Charles II. Brown, excused.
Buckfeld, Geo. II. Brigham.
Paris, W. W. Durham.
oxford. II. NJ. Eaton.
Fryeburg, Seymour A. harrington.
Norway, Geo. Z. Gibson, Foreman.
Brownteld, James r. Hill.
SECOND PANEL.
Norway. Geo. W. Hobbs.
Dixfeld. Harvey Keuney.
RumfOrd, Dana l.. kimbsll.
Gilead, T. G.. Lsry, excused.
StonehAm, Albert Littleneld.
Waterford, J. K. Longley.
Hiram. Joseph ID. Lord, excused.
Albany, Moses L. Mason.
Bethel, William w. Mason, Foreman.
Grafton, Moses McAllister.
Hartford, Emery Parsons.
RoIbury, George NJ. Richardson.
syFERNUMERARIEs.
Canton. William W Rose.
Hanover, Joseph +. Russell.
Denmark, Stillman K. Swan.
The forenoon session was consumed in
calling the docket, and the afternoon was
devoted to assigning cases and to consid-
ering motions.
The first case was put on trial wednes-
nay morning. Il was;
No. l79, Edward c. Cole, vs.. J. Wins
low Jones.
The plaintiff lives in Buckheld, and the
suit was TO recover pay for boxes used in
canning corn, and the demand was for
about sliOO. The plaintiff claimed he sold
the property, and made the contract with
J. WinSlow Jones, and not with any cor.
poration, and knew no other party than
the defendant personally. On the other
hand, the defense claimed that although
the defendant was known 10 the p.aintlf,
he was not known as aparty, bat as agent
OF the English corporation known as -.
That whatever was done by Jones was as
agent OF said Company, and he claimed
that the plaintiff must have had knowledge
OF this fact because there We're public
meetings prior 10 10 the contract, in the
village, and at those meetings it was made
known that it was the corporation that
would do business in the purchase of corn,
Sc The defendant denied any personal
liability, and the question was, as TO
whether the defendan, or the corporation
should be party defendant. The jury re-
turned a verdict for defendant.
Carried up 10 Law Court.
Bisbee & Hersey. s. c. Strout.
Other cases were tried As follows;
No. 34j. Abiish Buck vs.. The Phoenix
Insurance Co.
Plaintiff resides in Buckfeld, aud this
action is brought to recover insurance or
$500, for destruction Of buildings by fire
Sept. -, ISL. The plaintiff procured a
policy Of insurance Of $500, on his dwell
in. house, ell, wood shed and barn, from
al agent in Turner, representing the build
ings as "his buildings" Defendant Com
pany admit the issuing Of the policy, the
destruction of the buildings by fire, but set
up in defense these facts, viz: That the
plaintiff was the owner of the farm by deed
given 20 him Nov. IS, 1861; that he mort
gagged the premises January l., 1871; and
Afterwards conveyed his equity of redemp-
ton under these mortgages 20 his son "a
doc A. Buck, June 80, 1877, who gave back
TO the father, this plaintiff, mortgage on
the premises for support of plaintiff and
wife; consequently at the time of issuing
the policy, the plaintiff was but third mort
gagee, instead of owner of the premises, the
three mortgages all being outstanding, and
on the two first there being about $3.50, due
at this time. The value OF the premises
was in the neighborhood OF 81, 900, before
the fire, and had since the fire sold for
about $50. The defense claims that only
the plaiatiffs ins urable interest, under the
revised statutes can be secured in this
suit. and that it must be very small; while
on the other hand the plaintiff contends
that the real value of the buildings can be
recovered. After the testimony was out
the case was withdrawn from the jury, and
carried to the Law Court on report.
Bisbee Hersey. Foster Herrick.
No. 24S. Walter NJ. B rown VS.. Sumner
II. Wsrdwell..
The plaintiff lives in Albany, the defen-
dant in Otisheld. The action is brought
20 recover for services of plaintiffs minor
daughter, who worked for defendant in
1881, thirty one weeks, at $500 per week
making in all se3 90. Plaintiff claims the
wages of the defendant on the ground that
defendant had no right to settle with the
daughter.
The defendant claimed that the daughter
had been allowed to work out at various
places for six or seven seasons and had al
ways received her own earnings, the father
never having interposed any objection,
and had worked eleven weeks at the de-
PENDANTS house the year previous, and had
received her pay, and no objection