Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1884-09-30

=. 4. MAAims iAhs-
{. y. Porter. "
G.M Small. Sumner.
Josiah "a Stearns. Lowell.
samuel n. wadsworth. Hiram. fortuida.
G. woodsum, Norway.
Eiieu n. willard. Waterford,
Lcmuel wheeler, GlleAd.
&. n. Day, stow.
samuel NJ. King, Paris.
r. ;. Cannon. Norway.
America Andrews, Paris.
Geo. = Andrews. Norway.
waldo fcttengin, Ramford.
The past week has been busy one n
The coart AL the attorneys seemed 10 b
really for ulAl. and while asst week her'
was nothing Coz TIE lsry 70 90, this wesl
the cases have been pressed 80 there VA
not time - hear them all
The following eAses have been tried
la3. Reubeu Richmond vs.. Lewis Reed
TrAsk. SwAsey. RAniAils.
This action wAs on trial When ne ~en'
70 press. lasi MondAy. II ws an action
OF Assampslt on account annexed for N
value o. river boat used BY drivers 10
coating ioEs down the AndrOscOggin. The
plalnuf lives In Byron and owned riVe'
boat. Defendant resides In MEXICO and Is
q farmer he bad In the spring Of is,2
small rAN OF logs which be wished 70 drive
down ne Androscoggin. lie needed
boat for tbs purpose, and thOughi Of ne
one owned ~ plants A. suitable for BIZ
purpose Richmond wN 10 Mexico aud
these parties met Reed tod p,Alntf that
he wanted rs boat. Ani nom this Poln'
the testimony l. a. variance. fiAiutir
SAYS be told Reed be w01id sell The boat
Coz So o. lease Il 10 hin f0r he drive Al
81 pr DAY. 1.-THE drive took a loag time
De- might make q dciucilon. Reed says
there was 10 such trade. lie dii no,
Agrce b paw 81 PER Gay for The use Of boat
no sum being set OF mcntioned-but i
wAs agrecd IA, be- sho1d have The boat
for The drive without any suPalasions A.
. price. ne dit no, Wish % purcAAss
the boat. And claims that be - stated ~
p'Autls Also. ths, he Askcd PlAln,ls how
much De wout take Cor the hoai A. be
knew % parties down river who wanted
one. AM plAintir sad So Reed vent 70
Byron. got TIE boat ant drove bis logs.
ne las never returned H. and has kept II
most % his time on his own premises.
10 regArt o. value " boa, Reed states
thai .i wNs badly stove and be expended
The tine % two men one Gay with pitch
ant other materials Tor repairing H. before
Il c5uid b. used. lie dii no, consider the
pa; % much value rialutlf testified
that lie beat wNs worth So And brought
on q party by whom be- occrei 10 prove
TAT 90 hAt been offered Ant refused Cor
the boat lssi before Reed bad H. VIII
TIE boat Rcet hat three oars. one paddle
And three pick poles such a. are used In
this bus.ness. March ~, iss5, Reed loan
e. Richmond Ten dollars, which amount
VA credited 20 Aim. The lury retained q
verdict % sio a. for Plaiu,is
ils John c. GTAyhAm ". Chaplin Viz
g.u. Hosea 5. staples and John N. Wan
GIN.
Hammons Herrlek. SwAsey.
P.Nnt.f sues defendants Tor vAas % q
crop % bay % his meadow, vaich be
claims Wa destroyed BY water fowlng
back ron mill operated BY them. 10 vlo-
iailoa % an Agreement that the water 10
their pond shouli not BE- RAISED above fosr
feet a. The min from the hrst o. Jane ul
the first OF september PiAlnuf puts 10
deeds OF the meadow and mill. running
the title back 10 Isis. The transfers are
followed down. making aeomplete chain,
% The present tine. The THE ~ this
meadow IA acres 10 extent and the
title % TIE mln and privilege were a.
,raced iuio The hands % one Lorenzo
Moore 10 The wear lsf9. In ls51, Moor
having died. bis widow, Clementlne, ~hs
Was ADMINISTRATIVE on bis estate. decided
the meadow o. piAintif 10 this case. JOIN
c. GrAyhAm- Al the same time (deed'
bearing sane date she decided the NIL
and privilege 20 Patrick Hoyt Thes'
deeds were objected % by DEFENDANT
e0uasel on the grOand that the iprObat'
proceedings were detective. 30 the admin
ls,rAir.H could not give good title. Rec
orts % The Probate Court were lntrOduc
81 AMI Jadge Haskell ruled that FOR ID
purposes Of this case the deeds should b
admitted. 70 which exceptions were tskeI
by defeu1ants. These dceds given By
Ciementine Moore 10 John c. GEayhsm
And Patrick Hoyt, each contained pro
vision that nom the frsi OF June Oh
the first o. September, the water At ID
mill should no, be maintained AZ . pltcl
o. over four feet This mill and privilege
have teen sold. mortgAged and transferred
times innumersble and reference has most
always been bad 20 the Ciementine Moor
deed containing his proviso. In febru
airy. iss-, Chaplin Virgin, one Of the De
] ANMAAAr ~ ~ 49, ANNaNa 80 aAaA -
privilege BY varrsntse deed 10 Hosea 5
Staples and John NJ Vaughn. They, on
same day. mortgAged IL bach FOR fall eou
siteration, 500. Staples and vanghr
have operated the mill since thx time
P.aintir says that Aboa, the nrst OF June
he heard that defendants did not intend q
run the water out Of their pond. a. usual
SO on the nrst day Of June be took c. \
Richardson for witness and went 10 The
min b notify The owners that they mus,
run the water down 10 . f0ar foot head
This Vaughn declined 10 DO. The second
day Of June crSyhsm went 70 the mil an
removed the fash boards on the dam, d
A. 10 let the water out This Vaughn re
sisted. BAT The boards were removed, snc
went sailing down stream with the sur
plus water. Immediately Vaughn recov
cred them and replaced them. Plaintiff
declares that during the time proscribec
BY the provisions Of the deed, In lisa, de-
PENDANTS maintained more than four feel
Of water Al the mill. and By so doing
flooded his meadow and spoiled his crop
Of grass TIA, be was unable 10 now the
meadow during he haying season Of 1882
that The roots Of his grass were killed.