Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1885-10-27
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT,
OCTOBER TERN, 1885.
COURT ofFIcERs

]
AUSTIN 4. STEARNs. Jaiicr.
A. 2. BAssKrr. Deputy
n. T.. HAMMOND. Deputy as Crier.
J. A. HAYDEN, NisHogrdphp.
WILLIAM A. BlRRows. Hess,Hger.
The verdict In 40 297. Jason Russell -.
wslter Blsbee, on trial last week. As We
went 20 press was for plaintiff, In The sum
% So 90
The neat case tiled was No. Isl.
George n. Cummings and Joseph G.
Da,ls' Wright.
Swssey. blsoee
This Was an sstlon Ia which The plain.
| tifs seek o. recover from the de'endsnt
for the difference between the price paid
aud the actual valul Of horse purchased
hy them from the defendant Tho Cum.
mlngs brothers purchased a pair Of sofFel
colts from the defendant. In February,
ls.t They say that klmoal told them
the colts were al right. ani that they
could not iud a DOT 90 plmple on them
AMER they got the colts bone, they found
that one OF them was cfiober OF the wort
llnd. also that she baked In goiog out %
the yard, that she SHE'D AMI fAu back
when on the road. aud wAs bad horse,
rot Oh 10 the representations made BY the
aef.nfAnt They say that this colt was
worth from 60 10 500 lees than The price
paid. They Introduce testlmouy % show
The character Of this colt, before her puf
chase aui amer she was purchased ~ ihe
Cumming. brothers. The horse was taken
10 Portland and sold 81 the horse railroad
company. when the purchasers hal 10
tended the pair Tor Zoe driving span The
defense il that Mr kmban dii not waf'
rant the horses. aud made DO representa-
tlors To regard 90 their character before
the sale There Il direct eotnici OF tes'
umony Ia regard 90 this. Defendant says
that amer the pafchAso be told Cummings
that The horse Ia dlspgie was somewhat
skltilsh. bot be dli not state that she vas
= cflbbsr TIE case WAS ably tried on
both sides.
Ths Presiding Jasticc Instructed the
iary that 10 the defendant represented ihr
colts q be all right, and the plaiutlfs,
r,iylng upon that representation, made TIE
purchase, aud we're deceived tarrrbY, that
thsy could recover damages, as for bfrach
OF an express warranty Tat n the dc
f,ptant Anew ~ any unsOundaess Ia The
colt. that %, plaluiifs could not discover
by reasonable care Ani diligence, ani yet,
soli The colts - the plaintiff without dis
closing The unsonuinsss, or, ~ aftlnce %
ffsui. b. concealed ths unsouniness. or
pf,vsnted 10 discovery, then, thc lAN
woaii Imply warranty, aud that. n the
purchase vas m abe by reason Or thi Nar.
ranty. aud the plaintiffs we're thereby de-
cslysi. they coai recover danhgcs. That
erin hitting would be- an unsoaniucss with
In the terms % WAfrAuty, IN dspfeclaisd
the u.efulness and value % The auimh.
The lafy brought ln verdict for plata
10. 10 the sum u So 81
80. leo. Ambrose D. Scgaf, Aimlnisifa-
Tor of JOIN e. Segaf, ~ Nathan ;. Par
uum ani Meffii Lniklu.
ilatchlns, "Hght
Seasey
An action on q promlssory note fof $3.50,
dated March o.. i..0, signsd by y. > Far
nun aui Merritt y Lafkln A. surtiy. Al
the September term. ls,l. fafuam bslng
Ia In-olyeucy. dlscoutinasnce vas IN
ter,d A. % him on motion % the plaluun
Al The March term. i..i the case was
uisd. r,sultlng To- verdict Tor Tie plain.
~ against The safty Tor sli.ss. The
/ plalniif flci exceptions, aud tie cas- went
H. The law court The exceptions were
sustained. ard the case came back fJr
new tral. The q, attendant Introduced The
testimony Of Farnum 90 show a payment
upln the note 20 John Srgn % s2,i.
August a.. isse. which WAS Dot Then cntors-
upon 10, a. the latter i.d not have the note
with hin Al the time The understanding
being that the endorsement should oc mafc
/ by SegAr when be retained home, and that
/ he should bring the note 10 farnum when
/ he nett came - the Place 10 show that
the endorsement had been properly male
| that Srgar died very Suddenly afier The
payment, aud that The note WAS found
amoug his paper. by the Administrator
/ with no endorsement upon H. Defendant
also introduced Testimony relative % GER
/ tain accounts which were allowed upon
. the note by the administrator. Thursday
morning the Jury retained verdict Tor
/ The plaintiff against the surety Tor sos 0l.
aud further found that there was dge the
plauiin March =. l.st, 90 a.. Al that
L iA'c. which was Just previous % the form.
/ er trial. an Offer was made 10 be defiulted
for The sun 81 siO0. which wAs refused.
/ The case was one of considerable Interest,
aud was closely contested
Russell = whitman, ~ Buckncii, ap-
psAlant IRON q decision OF the lover court
imposlug a Que OF 300 aud costs, amount
lng 10 al % si26 cj, on = search and SELF
ore complaint, was brought Into court,
aud recognized Tor his appearance from
10. I'D Daniel c. smith re- ChArle. II.
Smith.
Hal. Andrews,
Klmbal. Swasey.
An action OF assump.lt The plAlntif
resides 10 CAsco, sui the defendant re-
/ sides 10 oxford The plaintiff claimed 20
I recover a balance Of 80 20 alleged 10 be
I due on an account for boarding The defend
ants horse from October 10, is,O. 10 June
/ 10. iss2 The defendant claimed that the
plaintiff hal greatly Oyercharged FOR the
/ hay and grain furnished. and that the &C
| count had been settled. Verdict Tor plain
| 10. 50 20
state a. Albert Cofir, OF Norway. 10.
/ dlcted al this term a. common seller
Plea, guilty. Sentenced 20 pay doe OF
600 and costs. amounting In al 70 $40,
and in default OF payment % sixty days IN
the County jail.
]. ). Wright. County Attorney.
state g. same. Indicted AZ this term
for keeping drinking house and Tipping
shop Ples, guilty. Sentenced 10 pay a
Zoe OF 500 and costs, aud In default OF
payment, % three months In the County
iail. this senteLce to take eject when scn'
teuce In the previous case shall have been
performed. Committed.
J. ). Wright. County Attorney.
State rs James COursen, OF NorNaY'
Indicted AZ this term A. common seller.
Pies, guilty. Sentenced 10 pay nne OF
slOO aud costs, amounting 20 So, aud 10
default OF payment 10 Imprisonment In The
County jail for sixty days Committed.
J. $ Wright. County Attorney
No 25l william +. Greene g. Marshall
Jordsn aud Albion klmbAll.
Her-ick Holt KimbAll.
An action OF assumpsit The plainth
cialmed 10 recover = Dslancc OF sj0j.SO
alleged % be due on the sale OF 100. lss OF
poplar slaves. sold ~ be delivered ~ the
defendants shops In Norwsy, al slj per
thousand. The def,udiut claimed that TIE
agreement was that the shook were 10 be
purchased At 30 shook 10 the thousand In
stead Of ten hundred slaves ~ The thou
sand, a. the plaintiff allege'. and that full
paymen, bad been made FOR al the shook
so manufactured. Verdict for The plslu'
III for s3l5 a., the full smoaut clslmei
with interest
40 265 Albion 5 Burgess - Dsnison
Dor Manufacturing Co