The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1892-03-24
Somerset 8. j. Court.
MARCH TERM, 1892.
no,

MARCH l ERMt lo5@s
n. W. BRArSERp, clsrk
F. W. novEY, Comfy Attorney.
MlNTA S. POWERS. StenogrdpAcr.
G. ii. Piston, ShertF
]. II. Mitchell, Lyman Grant C. f. NeAzie,
c. W Dyer, Depmics.
Dana 5. Pishon, Messenger.
Thursday Marcb, II George s.
Burrin VS. f. Y Morris, unfinished at
adjournment Wednes fay, verdict was rend
cred st 4 30 A. NJ, for plaintiff for S56.42
Rowe VS.. Wheeler ana TT. heard by the
Court Wednesday trustees was dischsrg-
ed, and exceptions were filed by plsntiti
which removes the case to the Law Court
The case of James Wright VS., Warren
Worthley * Tr. was heard by the Court
on demurrer. Demurrer overrulled. Elk
ceptiona filed and allowed.
la Mace futile, heard by the court
on motion to quash motion was dismissed.
Fridqy March, IS Divorces were grant
ed Mabel Webster from Elmer j. Web
ster for cause of non-support and to
Alice May futile from George futile for
cause of three years desertion. The
Grand Jury report seven indictments. one
each for the following otienses; Tippl
ing shop, nuisance, common seller, com
pounding felony, violation of insurance
laws, breaking and entering and lacerny.
Saturday Mqrch, 10. Divorce was de
creed to Lizzie IL. Folsom from Frank
Folsom.
Monday Narch 81 Richard II. Merrill,
ct al VS. l. l.. Morrison ct al, action of
trespass quare clausumfor breaking plain-
th7s plate glass window by blasting a
ledge Oh the opposite side Of the street.
Defendants plead not guilty and claim
the work was done by third firm under
an independent contract with the defen-
dsnts. Merrill & Coffin for plaintitfs, D.
ID. Stewart for defendants. The trial of
this case began Thursday, was continued
through Friday and Saturday and on
Monday Judge Foster made his charge,
the case being given to the jury about
1915 A. M. Verdict for the plaintiff for
$50 20 This case attracted considerable
attention because of the prominence of
the parties in SkoWhegan business life.
The amount of money in controversy is
not large but important principles of
law were involved In the determination
of this suit.
M0nday March 2lst, Darius II. Bartlett
VS. Loren Leathers, suit on one promissory
note by assignee against endorser. De
Tense claims note is one of five secured by
mortgage which has been foreclosed also
that no sufficient notice OF protest was
ever given to defendant. Plaintiff replies
that the value of mortgaged premises was
not sufficient to pay all the notes. Case
withdrawn from The jury and msrkcd,
Law on report
T.. n. Merrill for plf b. D. Stewart
for deft.
Samuel Bunker vs. Willie Hardy; de
faulted by consent.
The plaintiff failing TO appear in Albion
p. Mace vs. George futile, non suit was
ordered.
Joseph ii. Butler vs. Marcelus Freeman
action for possession of premises, mort
gagged to secure support of plaintiff but
the condition of which plaintiff claims to
have been broken at the death of the
mortgager. Defense claims that the CON
tract did not expire at the death of the
mortgager, but that her legal representa-
tves may fulfil the conditions of the
mortgsger. Case withdrawn from jury
and marked Law ON report"
Walton Walton for plf.
II. ID. Eaton for diff.
Nelson Watson VS. Lucy Delano, Admx.
heard by the court on demurrer demur-
rer overruled, case to be tried by jury.
| Walton " wait III Tor pin.
L. N. Merrill for defendants.
Tuesday, March 22nd, Divorces were
granted as follows; Fannie A. Lord from
Charles E. Lord for the cause of five years
utter desertion. Henry M. Rowe from Ar
vile Rowe for the cause of three years
desertion.
A non suit was entered in the cases of
King vs Stevens and Pooler vs. Maine Cen
trial K. X. Co.
Wednesday, March 23,d Charles II.
Salsberry vs. David G. Richardson, action
on account for services of self and team
rendered by plff. and son for deft. De-
PENDANT claims that the price agreed upon
was less than plf claims and that the num-
Der Of days work was smaller that plff
claims.
Walton & Walton for plf.
Chapman & Chapman for deft
| Verdict for plaintiff for $101.37.
In the case of State vs. Samuel Bunker,
indictment for forgery of deed Of real
estate, which was tiled last term and de
PENDANT convicted and case marked "Law
on Exceptions" Defendant fles motion
for new trial on the ground of newly dis
covered evidence. The following testi-
mony was introduced by defendant in sup
port Of the motion for new trial De
fendants son, Fred W. Bunker, testified
that he was In defendants store and saw
the deed at the time of its execution and
that 1t was In the same condition as a.
present, and that the grantor told him
that he had sold the land to Samuel Bun
ker. After an exhaustive hearing and
able arguments by the counsel on both
sides, the court took the matter into con-
sderation till future day. s. S. Brown
& Wsltons for Mr.. Bunker; County At
torney Hovey for the Stale.