The Somerset reporter., 1888-01-04

anu not III the uSllai loflh Oh pFoIiiseprN
note, buf il i substantially so. ID certum
eSt qaod ceffu,a rod6 poteSt, in good Eng
lish, That Is certain that can be made GER
tain. BY reference to the face of the pa
per the principal is made certain aud the
date when interest commences is made
certain
Defendant. So far our defense has
been technical We have real defense
on the merits Neither | nor my wife
knowingly signed either writing. We
didn owe the plaintiff any such sum.
Court For the purpose of the trial
instruct the jury that the writing declared
on is a promi>sory note, and leave the
other question as to the genuineness of
the signature where the attorneys have
left it in their arguments to the determine
alton of he jury.
Verdict for plaintiff, SlNG,9U.
Parlin for the plaintiff
" are with Walton for the defense.
Wonday, jan. 2Hd-Micah W Norton
vs.. Orrin Lane
Account annexed for double horse
wagon, $50; interest, SIP; amount, SG2.
Also special count on the following
written with pencil on brown paper:
$50. This is for the purpose of showing
that |, Orrin Lane, of Embden, have tax
en- double wagon that said Norton had
of j. Hilton, the first of June, 1850. for
which he paid J. Hilton tfty dollars and
| will either return the wagon in AS good
condition A. now, first of shedding, and
pay for its use. or pay Norton ffty dollars
and interest from the first of June lssj.
Signed. Grin Lane
UefenSc. NV signature To the writing
Is forgery | never signed it, True,
got the wagon: Norton had ii of Hilton
he asked so dollars for it; but was act
ing for my brother who refused to give
$50 for it. SO he hired IT, True he did
not return it, but that is not my fault; the
wagon is not worth more than half of
$50.
Rpiy, \ conspiracy between two
brothers to cheat me out of my wagon.
Charles Lane has been through insolveu-
cy So Orrin denies his signature and
plays that he was agent
plaintiffs attorney had Orrin sign his
name several times for comparison. Nor
ton spells 1t in the body of the writing
''Orrin"; defendant spells it AS in the sig
nature. Mr.. Ware contends that the spec
linens are very diSsimilar to the sigma
turc. while Mr. parlin sees them very
similar; the counsel look through differ
cnt glasses.
Verdict for plaintiff for $50 and inter
est, S57.75
Paflin for plaintiff.
Ware for defendant.
7te@la4, Inn ,, 1888. Lyman Cook
vs.. W. j. Curt. Account annexed for
1000 picker sticks at q cts. each, $500.
Defense. True, | ordered that quanti-
ty of picker sticks. You furnished them
according 10 the order, so far as the guam
tity was concerned. If they had been ac-
cording to san pie there would have been
no trouble about it, aud you would have
had your pay without this suit, but you
wonld not have received your pay from
me. | was not acting for myself, but as
agent of T. .Jenckes Manufacturing Com
pany. This company were furnishing
mill supplies. was their travelling
agent; had been applied to by the Pea
body Mills of Newburyport for picker
sticks. | furnished the tags for Mr..
Cook in sending the sticks to Peabody
Mills, and told him to send his bill to the
f. ,Ienckes Manufacturing Company.
Mr.. CLARK, the AGENT of the mills rejected
the sticks. Some of them were knotty,
some of them were crossgraincd, all of
them were rough and did not follow the
had to run in groove without extra ht-
ting.
Reply. | dealt with you as principal.
You not only ordered the thousapa which
| charged you with, but toltt~-.c that you
would take twanty thousand. This
| thousand that | delivered, you inspected
Yourself before | sent them, and found
! no fault with them. They were as good
or better than the sample. Yon did not
disclose your agency until after the con
| tract was made
The foregoing is the substance of the
story of the two parties. Expert wit
nesses from wooden mills and from cot
ton mills were on the witness stand and
four large boxes filed with the picker
sticks, which had travelled from Iartland
to Newburyport, thence back to Pitts
field, thence To Portland, where they were
sold to pay freight, thence to Skowhe-
gan, where they were to do service as
evidence in the law suit, were present in
court
Tuesday morning was full of surprises,
Plaintiff put In letter of defendant, in
which defendant said; al do not want
you to think | made any trade with you
to furnish any to f. Jenckes Manufactur-
ing Co.'S order, but what | order you will
get your pay for.
Defendant put in a letter of the plain
tiff to Il. Jenckes Mfg. Co., in which he
says agreed with him (Curt) as your
agent to make 30 to % thousand picker
sticks etc.
The defendants attorney invited view
of the working of picker sticks in
Il wooden mill The PLAINTIFF counsel af-
ter a little coy and reluctant delay. con-
scented. Perhaps the view helped the
plaintiff more than it hurt him.
The Court instructed the jury in sub
stance, that the plaintiffs admission in
his letter was not part of the contract,
did not bind him and was open to explana-
ton
Verdict for plaintiff, S29.75
Bradbury with Merrill for plaintiff
WatOns for defendant
JTc,laesdog. Both juries take a view of
the location of the Pittstied & Iartland
railroad, for the purpose of inspecting
the land for the taking of which damages
are claimed against the railroad in pend
ing suits.
CunernatoriaI Candidates.