The Somerset reporter., 1890-03-27

A. b. Fox, Messenger
Friday, March 2I-Hlram Bur1lll In
equi VS. Loretta +. Young ct ais.
Stewart.
Wright & Whitcomb
Plff. In his bill In equity, alleges that on
the LIST day OF Oct. 1887 he conveyed to
Loretta +. Young a farm In Pittsield for
$500. and in payment took IA promissory
notes 10 for 800. each and 4 OF sl25.
each In annual payments secured by
mortgage, all bearing date of Oct. LIST
1857 and signed by Loretta +. Young and
her husband David z. Young which
mortgage was duly executed and deliver
ed, but never recorded, but was lost and
cannot be found.
The deft. Loretta +. Young in her ans
wer filed, denies that any mortgage was
ever given or talked Of In the trade for
the farm.
This Is the issue submitted to the jury.
PHI called Loretta +. and David z.
Young, who testified to purchase OF the
farm and execution of deed to Loretta +.
Young dated Oct. lat 1887 aud acknowl-
edged Oct. Sth 1887 before Jas. Fellows,
at 2nd National Bank, also to signing IA
notes of same date Of the deed, aud that
none of said notes have been paid. The
same witnesses denied that any mortgage
was claimed by the plff., or that any
mortgage was ever given by them to the
plf. They also testified that plfi's son
Cecil J. Burrill wrote and witnessed said
deed and notes at his fathers house In
Skowhegan.
Jas. Fellows testified to acknowledge
ment OF the deed of farm Oct. 8 1887 and
3 bat H. -
Cecil j. Burrill.
At this point of the trial, plff. produced
the mortgage Of Loretta F. and David 7.
Young duly ext cuted by them, witnessed
by Cecil J. Burrill. acknowledged before
Jas. Fellows and bearing date Of said
deed and notes.
PHI. testified that this was the mort
gage, alleged to have been lost; that in
Sept. last, after bringing this action, the
mo rtgage was found among some cast of
papers in nail cask, In his wood shed.
Cecil j. Burrlll testified to writing the
said deed. mortgage and notes, and wit
Messing their execution at his fathers
house, on the day the date thereof. Da-
Wis and Fitzgerald the other two defts.,
testified that plf. said In the fall OF 49,
that he had no mortgage on the farm and
afterwards said, he had lost 1t, that
about same time, Davis took mortgage
OF farm from Mrs. Young, and that Fitz-
gerald obtained permit from her to cut
timber and wood from the farm.
Deft. claimed that the mortgage was
forged and the said Loretta F. and David
z. Young, on inspection Of the mortgage,
testified that they never signed 1t.
The case was submitted to the jury at 4
p. M. Saturday az, who returned YER
dict for the plff.
Saturday, March. 22-The Grand Jury,
Saturday noon reported indictments as
follows;2 for nuisance; common sell
er; tippling shop; l keeping gambling
house; | assault; cruelty to animals; l.,
burglary; /, malicious mischief.
Atty's. Merrill & Coffin,
James Wright.
Action Of trespass for II tons OF hay
valued at Sll0, taken by the defts. from
the barn on the farm In Pittsfleld con-
veyed to the plff. to Loretta +. Young,
by Oct. l, 1887.
sion, but claim that 1t was sold to deft.
Fitzgerald, by Loretta f. Young for
$50, January 10, 1889, by written bill Of
sale, and that the hay was fed out on the
farm or sold by the defts., during the
winter OF 1889.
PHI. claims and testifies, that early In
July 'Ss he had negotiation with David
Young as to resciending the sale of
farm, made to his wife SO that they
would loose nothing; that very soon af-
forwards he negotiated prospective sale
Of the farm to deft. Fitzgerald, who
moved upon the farm, plowed and hauled
stones; that August IS, s8 he went to
farm with David P. Young, and ascer-
tained the quantity Of hay In the harm, cut
by Young and his wife, to be IS tons,
which they called $1l7 and gave credit
for same on his book.
In Sept. '8S deft. Davis bought Of plff
one "band" of the hay and gave him his
note for 500; that Dec. Is, 'S8 he made q
written settlement with David p. Young
relative to recording sale of farm, includ-
Ing hay and timber cut by Young and
wife since purchase of farm, which SET
Element was approved and signed by
David z. Young, and shew balance due
plff. of $19l.70 for which David 2.
Young and Loretta +. Young gave their
note of same date of the settlement.
Testimony In the case conflicting, Sub
mitted to |, Jury.
Verdict for plfi. $92 %.
Grant Witham We. Irwin Ellis.
Cover.
Simmons.
To recover damages for refusing to de-
liver 10 Shropshire eve sheep sold by
deft. to plf. Oct. IL, 1889, for the sum OF
$48, ten dollars Of the purchase money
being paid on the day Of sale.
Evidence shows that on same day of
sale the deft.'s father, who lived on the
farm with deft. and was In possession OF
the flock on the farm Oncluding these
sold by the deft.) sold the whole flock in
the absence Of his son, for $3.50 per
head.
Plff. soon after rendered to deft. the
balance due for the 16 sheep and demand
cd delivery.
Deft. offered to rescind the sale and to
return the $40 paid by plffs.
Evidence was introduced tending to
show market value Of said sheep.
The Court ruled that the measure of
damages was the difference between the
price agreed to be paid for the sheep, and
the market value of the same; which
difference added to the $40 paid by plffs.
should be the amount of the verdict.
they had paid and twenty-six cents inter-
est, but no other damages. This gives
the plaintiff quarter costs.
Josiah II. Goodrich, admr. of John d.
Baker, deceased, vs.. Edwin g. Coffin.
Walton & Walton.
Merrill & Coffin.
Action on account for balance due for
lumber, $ll0.
The evidence introduced by plf. was
the admissions by the deft Of indebted
ness to the estate of said deceased for the
lumber in suit, his promise to pay the
pff. for the same and his admission that
he owed said estate for said lumber $llO
Deft.'s attorney moved Q nonsuit by
reason OF variance between plf.'s declar-
alton and account annexed, and the evil
dence introduced, also because no evi.
dcnce was introduced showing that the
lumber was surveyed as required by law.
The Court allow plff. to amend his
writ and account annexed, and refused to
order nonsuit. Submitted to the Jury,
without argument.
Verdict for plff. for $l1s.
First National Bank vs. Samuel A. Max
field.
Atty's Merrill & Coffin,
Barker, V0se & Barker and Walton &
Walton.
Trover, to recover pay for large lot
Of wool, which pins claimed, by virtue
of chattel, mortgage and foreclosure,
from John Tinkham to secure his, note
Of 1900. Writ dated February 1890
The wool sued for was bought by the
said Tinkhsm and was about being ship
ped TO Brown. StAose 4 Clark (AuQ. 7th