The Somerset reporter., 1890-01-02

L. II. Webb, Clerk.
+. +. Danforth, County Attorney.
J. d. Pulsifer, stenographer.
zenas Vaughan, Sheriff
Fred II. Webb, Messenger.
Deputies: John II. Mitchell, jailor,
LYMAN Grant, b. A. Sawyer, c. II. Jones,
Ruel Williams.
7hursldg. 20. Joseph +. Libby V.
Jefferson Chase ct al.
The action is brought on the warranty
contained at the close of the following
paper
Portland Me, May 2, 1857.
Chase & Son Of Portland, Me-, hereby agree
| to furnish to and on cars in Portland J. +
Libby Of Larone, Me, the following articles OF
| machinery at annexed prices, or not exceeding
| a total sum OF six hundred and fifty dollars in.
Guiding foot rig priced at $50. which is ut said
Libby's option to keep return he may
choose after fair trial of about 80 days, to
| wit:
Then follows several items amounting
In all to $3.50. But the whole controversy
Turns upon single item of "Onc u inch
second hand Chase patent turbine wheel,
sl75." The written contract closes as
follows
"rhe above sum payable one-half by note
four months with interest at u per cent, and
onc-half with n ono year BY Holmes note and
| interest at 6 per cent = Inc q inch wheel is
warranted to give ample power under the head
at said Libby mill To- drye circular saw mill te
cut six to eight thousand feet OF boards from
good size timber per day. Respectfully sub
| mtted and assured
CHASE & Son"
Plaintiff. True, had all of these arti
cles at the prices charged, and for a long
time was satisfied with the working OF
the wheel, but before completing my pay
ment of the Holmes note, | tested the
capacity of the wheel and found it would
only do about half the work promised.
finally paid the note and bring this sui
en- the warranty.
Reply. The wheel Is capable of tn,
work promised. The failure, If any, i,
due to the unskillful manner Of your sci
ting the pen stock aud other surround
ings.
Plaintiff set it according to the di
rections In your wheel book and just a,
you told me, and claim damages for NOR,
than the charge for the wheel.
Court. The rule of damages will no
allow to recover more than the cost o
the wheel. The rule If he RECEIVERS a
all Is the difference In the value of thu
wheel AZ 1t was warranted to be and it
value as 1t really was.
Verdict for plff. $50.
Waltons for plh.
Frank for deft.
: Monday Dec. 30--IIiram ii. Weston VI
Inhabitants of Arson, Theodore b. West
on vs.. Same. Two cases tried together
for damages to a reaping machine an
three horses, August 80, 1888, on accoun
of defective bridge on the Gilbert Strcal
= In Arson, which is part of great pull
lie thoroughfare. Hiram owned two 0
the horses, Theodore owned the machiD
and the third horse called Fred. Tb
three horses were harnessed abreas
Fred and one other on the off side of til
pole, and the third horse on the near sid,
Hiram was driving from Madison Villag,
where the plaintiffs resided toward Mort
Arson. He had crossed the toll bridg
into Arson and had got as far as III
4 Gilbert bridge in safety, but in attemp
;. Ing to cross, the three horses and Ii
machine were turned topsy turvey int
D the stream, and no question WAS mad
+ that they were somewhat damaged.
Y Plaintifis-say that on attempting t
cross, the horse Fred stepped on a plan
which was not fastened, 1t tipped an
struck another horse under his belly al
, Immediately Fred went over the wall int
, the stream followed by the other tw
horses in such fashion that the other tw
horses went over Fred, the machine wa
: turned upside down and all became almos
r inextrlcably tangled. The plank OF whic
Fred stepn1d 80 - .. ss.o, one uuu ssiv :,
ed long scratch made with the horse
hoof as he went down. The town ha
the two notices required. The II day
notice of the defect, location and iDjur
Z received and damages claimed. The 2
: hours actual notice of the defect prior I
the injury we claim was given. The ri
cord of town shows Is. II. Smith hghwa
surveyor In 1887, of the district and n
record of any surveyor of the district /
1888. We claim ii. b. Merry was actin
road commissioner for the town by az
pointment of the seectmen of whc
board he was one, that 1t was his busi
ness to know the condition of the briig
and that he did know it, and was special
notified by Geo. Flint and Frank Winsloy
at separate times OF the defect.
Defepdant-True the bridge was par
of highway which we were bound to keel
In repair, true the plaintiffs property wa
damaged while attempted to cross, bu
all the defenses open to us are: frs
that we hal not the "a hours notice of
defect, second there was no defect, thir,
the driver was not In the exercise of ordi
nary care.
The evidence was that the bridge SOM
years ago WAS constructed of granit'
walls at the sides, that crossing was lei
open, covered with fiat stones and q I'LL
ing of earth. That this was near tn,
Kcnnebec naout six rods. In 1887 ;
freshet raised the Kennebec; the over
flow washed under the Gilbert bridge ant
undermined the filling of earth on,
of the crossing stones dropped, the eartl
washed out and the bridge became i'm
passable. Owing to the overflow it was
difficult to make permanent repairs, 8
temporary narrow bridge was built anc
remained till this injury.
| Verdict for both plaintiffs, for Theo
dore Weston, sos, rs; for Hiram Weston
$50 80.
Walton & Walton with WILDER for plG
Merrill & Coffin for deft.
William Howard of Arson on Monday
retrscted his plea of not guilty on indlct-
ment for liquor selling and pleaded nold
con.endere, paid 500 fine and costs ana
was discharged. The County Attorney
found his witness Ia this case was shakey
and agreed to this rather than risk trial.
Law Court Decision.
Richard Wood ct al v. Skowhegan
Water Co.
REsCRIPT.
The evidence In this case covers more
than 100 octave pages, shows the follow
ing facts:
That one b. G. Nudge had a contract
with the Skowhegan Water Company dat
ed July 20, 1887 to constiuc It's water
works at Skowhegan, Me.
That in November, 1887 the Water
Company voted to change certain of its
p res from !nch as sp scihed in its con
IF ct with Nudge, to 6 inch pipe, and
that Nudge assented to the change in
consideration that he should be paid the
ex ra cost thereof. That in April 1888,
III" pipe was shipped on Mudge's order
~ defendant. who paid freight under an
arrangement with Nudge to do so on all
sater works material. That Mndge laid
all the inch pipe, but 22 pieces that
were attached prior to his failure In July,
SO, but has not paid the plaintiff for the
same. That Nudge received from de.
PENDANT, under the contract pay for most
If not all the inch pipe that were ex-
changed for the 6 inch pipe and had the
former shipped to Pennington Me-, to be
II I'D on water works there that he had to
do with. That defendant Co. did not az
thoriz" Nudge to purchase the inch
pipe on its credit; nor has it's conduct
been such toward the plaintiffs as to es-
top 1t from denying Mudge's authority to
do so. Moreover Mudges letter to plain
tiffs, under the style of ''Nati0nal Water
Works Syndicate" wherein he erquests
the 4 inch nina aank In f1,sr,na Al.ax.a III