The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1886-12-29

Charles +. Lane vs.. Isaac W hcelcf.
Rcplcvin Of cart aud wheels referred to il
former case, to depend ON the verdict in tina
case.
Verdict for defendant by consent.
Parlin for pf. Waltons for dcft.
Mo,ulay, n. Sarah \. Rowel vs. Nymphu
}odhsh.
The plaintiff gave to her BROTHER the defend
ant deed dated Sept. II, 1871 the descriptive
part Of which is as follows ~ certain piece >
parcel Of land situated in said Harmony, auc
being ono undivided even half part of all th'
land comprising the homestead farm now occu
pied and owned by me, the aforesaid Sarah \
| Howell uoon which very valu tblc mineral sub
stan e may be discovered or found, which the
said grantee may deem proper to open ant
improve ON said undivided half Of saidl and
The defendant went and dug from time tc
time boarding with and paving his board to hi
sister, but found no valuable mineral substance
but still claimed AN interest IN the farm. The
plaintiff bought her writ of entry to clear thu
cloud upon her title.
The presiding ruled that the deed conveyed
only an undivided half of 81 mush Of the farm
as had valuable mineral substance upon il, an(
there being no evidence that any portion Of Tho
farm had such substances upon it, apparently
nothing passed BY the deed, and instructed the
jury to return verdict for the plaintiff for th'
whole Of the demanded promises Such Il yer
dict returned. The defendant carries the
| case to the law court on exceptions.
Stewart for plaintiff
Hudson < Everett for defendant.
W, f, Colby vs.. Lucus Morrison.
In plea Of land, Judgment as on mortgage
Plaintiff claimed that he entitled to iudg
mcnt on this note according to its tenor
500 Skowhegan, March %, 1867.
For value received | promise to pay W
! 1 + 4 Il, ,1l.,p. ,ttaT
year from date with interest.
(SigncdD Lrcirs MonUIsoN.
Endorsement as follows;
March %, 1876. Received on the within note
interest to date 500 %.
Defense. This should have bren a general
in lorscmcnt. The Endorsement as interest was
made without my knowledge or consent, the in
tercst was cast ut 3-l0 per cent. for nine years,
and compounded at that, to which never con-
scented.
Reply | rather think you did consent. |
will not swear that you did, at the time, but be-
fore that You had agreed to have the interest
cast in that way.
The Judge said that he was not satisfied that
defendant consented to the casting OF the inter
est in that way at the time of payment, that
even if he had at the time the note was gwen,
made verbal agreement to that effect, the law
would not hold him to it. To recover more than
six per cent, the promise must be in writing.
The Judge rccast the interest, and found due at
this date, Si3l %, making a deduction OF
some $500 on the plaintiff claim.
Merrill < Coffin for plif.
Danforth K Gould for deft.
Lcmuel Worster VS.. Eliza \. Whittier ct al
Plea of land. Defendant dcnurrcd to the
declaration, because it did not allcge disscizin
and did not sufficiently describe the land, the
description being only by reference to deeds.
The court sustained the demurrer. Leave to
amend granted.
Willard for pf. Merrill < Coffin for def.
Same VS. Charles B. Whittier ct al. Same
counsel. Same entry.
Same VS.. Same. Same counsel.
Declaration on note. Demurrer that the note
was on time AMI declaration did not allcge that,
the time had elapsed Court oyerruled the de
lnurrcr, because the date Of the wit and the
note, showed that the time he'd elapsed.
Leave TO plead over.
Rose l.. Williams vs.. Samuel Bunker.
Trcspass, on the Sth of May 1850, in taking
and carrying away a COW valued $50 an one
yenrng hefcr, valued $50.
Defense. True, | took these animals on II
repleyn writ, but they were mine and not yours.
Eli NJ. Stewart who married plaintiffs sister
sold the cow and calf to me and gave me IA bill
of sale Of them, to pay debt due me.