Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1891-02-11
SUPERIOR COURT.
February Term, Hon. o. q Hall Pre-.
siding.
". S. CRoArE, Clerk.
G. T. STEVENS, Sheriff.
F. A. SMALL, SteDogrspher.

". S. CRoArE, Clerk.
g. T. STEVENS, Sheriff,
F. A. SMALL, Stenogrspher.
MONDAY, Feb. eth.
French B. Tobey vs.. Elizabeth Z. Riley.
F. f. Southland for plaintiff, +. W. White
house, and G. L. Tanner for defendant.
Assumpsit on account annexed to writ to
recover for 25 months rent Of room at
one dollar pc. month. and also for clearing
out cistern, and doing other work about
the defendsnts house, amounting in the
aggregate to S34 50 The plaintiff oc-
cupied the house Of the defendants in this
city and the defendant occupied one of the
rooms therein for storage purposes, for
which the plsin.iff claims he is entitled to
recover because he hired the whole house.
The defendants claim is that she reserved
the room in question when she rented the
premises, and also claims she is not liable
for the other items because she gave no
authority to have the work done, except
for some paperipg for which she c'aims
she has paid. Verdict for plaintiff for
$3.50.
TUESDAY, Feb. 10th.
Fred S. Thorn vs. Frank l. Pinkham,
II. ID. Pinkham and l.. NJ. Pinkbam. Farr
& Lynch for plaintiff. L. T. Carleton aud
+. f Besne for defendante. This is an
action on promissory note for $3.50, dated
Feb. 18th, 1889. payable in one year. run
niog to plff. and signed by F. l.. Pinkham
as principal and the other two defendants
as sureties. The principal being out of the
Gtat nd hop hao had -,
his case, suit was discontinued against him
The claim of the def;s. is that the principal
upon The note was at work for the plaintiff
in Gardiner sellicg meats and making col
lections of money, and that he collected
funds of the plff. to the amount Of $3.50
and appropriated them to his own use; tina.
thereupon the plsintiff demanded settle
ment, and they signed The note with the
principal to prevent prosecution against
him for embezzlement, and therefore it
was an illegal conside ration and they are
not liable in This action; also that the time
for payment was extended by plf without
the consent Of the sureties. The de-
PENDANTS also claim that the plaintiff took
from the principal a mortgage upon GER
tain household furniture, as a part of the
same transaction, in value more than
enough to pay the note, and that this action
cannot be maintained because the property
has not been applied to the payment of the
note. The plaintiff rejoins that the con.
sheraton for the note was the money
which the principal had belonging to the
plaintiff, and an agreement That he should
still remain in the employ of plaintiff; and
that the question of prose eution under the
criminal law did not enter into the arrange
ment, even if an embezz'ement had been
shown by the testimony, which he denied.
With reference to the mortgage on the
personal property, he says that under the
terms of the mortgage he could not enforce
his clsim until the note became due, and
that long before that time the goods had
disappeared beyond his reach, and further
than that, the principal owned but portion
of them. The plaintiff also denies
that there was rot such an txteDtion
of time for the payment of the note SIS
would release the sureties. Verdict for the
plaintiff.