The Somerset reporter., 1886-09-22
Supreme judicial Court.
SEPTEMBER TERM

lInnY J. Presiding.
"Wednesday. sept. Is. Caleb \ Davis
". Chas. +. Leighton. Action to recover
the valne of pair of steers
Defense. ! purchased them Of one
Amos Hale who purchased them from
your wife. the rightful doner
After the case was committed to the
jury and before they agreed upon their
verdict, the parties settled this case, to-
gcther with other cases hetNeen them.
Merrill Stewart
Friday. SEPT II. Philander Wilson ".
Samuel Bunker
This is a writ of .iudda Querell brought
to annul Judgment recovered by Bunker
vs.. Wilson in the Supreme judicial Court.
AT the Sept term ISIS, on II note dated in
1872, and the execution issued on Said
judgment, with the officers return OF the
sale of an equity of redemption thereon.
PHI aims to recover on the ground
that he was declared an insolvent debtor
under the Insolvency laws of this state in
1919, and 81 duly discharged from his
debts by the / SOlvcncy Court, in Cum
berland County in 1873. The main con-
tcntion between the parties is whether the
PLAINTIFF discharge in Insolvency bars the
plautii Judgment recovered on con-
tract, made prior to the enactment of the
Insolvency law. This question has been
determined against the plaintiff by the
Law Court
| The pill. now contends that he recov-
cred Il Judgment in an action in the Supe
rior Court in Cumberland county. against
| the deft. in lss2, in which the question
whether the Judgment was barred by the
discharge MAS directly in issue and was
decided in his favor.
After the evidence was all out. the
court ruled that the judgment was not Il
bar and the deft. not estopped by the
Judgment in Cumberland county aud d-
reCted a verdict in favor of the delft
Ware, Larrabcc. Stewart.
| Samuel Bunker vs. Philandcr Wilson
This is writ of entry in which the
pltf. seeks to recover title and possession
of certain lots of land sold upon an exc
cution which was involved in the action
Of Wilson v. Bunker, and the same ques-
tons are involved a. in that ease. After
the evidence was all out. the court ruled
that the plh7s title was good and directed
a verdict in his favor.
Stewart. Warc, Larrabce.
| Tuesday, Sept. II.
Allen Dawes VS. Freeman Berry.
lows
"For value received promise to pay Allen
| Dawes or his order nine hundred dollars and in
terest i'll four months. November "a, lSS3.
Freeman Berry"
The def. say, that the signature looks like
his, and while he cannot testify positively that
the name is his hand writing he does not deny
| it; but he denies that he wrote his name on
that paper when the words appearing above his
name were on il.
In December 1882 plf. bought of def. farm
paying him therefor 81 900 in money and
note for six hundred dollars. Afterwards he
gave def. a note for S245 and note for S23j
| November 9th 1888 def bought the farm back
and wa, to give plf. $3.50; he was is deduct
whatever was due him on notes which he held
against plf. giving his notes for the balance
Def. says that nothing had been paid on the
note for $500, the note for S245, or the note for
ss23j. They went to Mr.. Parlin's office in An
son to have the deed made and upon figuring
the interest on the notes, according to dcft's.
statement, they found due plH S267 Is, and
after having the three mortgages discharged
which secured the notes for $500, S2ij. and
S23j he gave his note for S267.l and gave no
other note.
Plf. replies that it is true that they went to
Mr.. Parlins office and had the deed made, and
that there the mortgages discharged and
the note for S267 Is, given; but he denies that
the three notes were all unpaid. lie says that
he had paid the $500 note, and that on Nov. 3
1888 he paid Sl13.l3 on the S2i5 note, that ac-
cording to his figures, besides the S2G1.l3 there
was due him $500 and that the note for $500
was given in the Post Office at Arson on the
same evening that the other note was given af-
ter Berry found he could not hire the money.
Verdict for def
Merrill and Ware. Brown.
Tuesday Sept. q.
State vs.. w. II. Emerson.
Indictment for breaking and entering the
J house Of Clement Goodwin in ilartand ON the
night OF the 2Sth of May last and stealing there
, from watch belonging to Wallace Goodwin
The deft admits the stealing of the watch but
denies the breaking and entering. lie says ht
vas sleeping there that night; that he had
worked for Mr.. Goodwin at different times anC
had been told to come there at any time wher
he out of work and that he did 90 there
! that night before Mrs. Goodwin retired and
slept on the lounse in the kitchen,
Verdict guilty Of larccncy.
" Bradbury. Simmons.
Sentenced to nine months in Jail.
Tuesday Sept. 81,
David II. Corson VS.. Martha IIathorn.
This action Of assuinpsit to recover
= from the def. betterments on lands which the
plH claimed def. disposessed him Of Feb. 1885,
on writ of possession issued on judgment in
n writ OF entry bought by the deft against him
for possession in Oct. 1852. lie introduced evi-
dcnce tending to prove his he claimed
2 but after his evidence was all out the Judge
3 was Of opinion that he could not recover and
directed the jury to return a verdict for def.
4 Exception was taken by plf's council.
Brown K DanfOrth. Stewart.
The Grand jury have returned the fol
lowing indictments for the September
term;
State Y. johnson, Pittsfeld, Common
seller
State vs.. Warren, Skowhcgan, Common
seller.
State vs.. Emerson, Hartland, Burglary.
State vs.. Jones, Skowhegan, Assault
and battery.
State vs.. Lord, Ripley Rape.
State VS. Davis, Portland, Illegal ar
rest.
State vs.. Town Of Emblem, Defective
highway.
State VS.. Town of Canaan, Defective
highway.
-s - - s-