Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1893-10-16
SOMERSE- COURT.
September Term. Supreme Judicial Court al
Skowhegan-Iudge Whitehouse. Presiding


FRIDAY, Oct. Is.
John II. Coffin vs. Otia S. Haskell ct
ais, action for breach of covenant. The
evidence in this action was taken out be-
fore the presiding justice, VIM. 7. White
house, at the March term of court, and the
action referred to him. Judge Whitehouse
viewed the premises during the summer and
filed his report at this term of court, giving
dana ges to the plaintiff in the sum of Sl32.
For the third time the hard fought case
of W. ID. Atkinson VS. +. + Parks &
Bros is on trial in the Somerset court.
This is al action on n promissory note
for $500 made by + +. Parks, payable to
his o~n order and indorsed by F. T.. Parks,
W. ID. Al nson and F. f. PARKS & Bros,
in the order named,
Plaintiff claims that he WAS accustomed
to sign notes as surety for the benefit Of
F. 4. Parks 4 Bros; that in August, 1851,
he signed the note in controversy for the
benefit of +. +. Parks & Bros, that the
names of F. f. Parks and F. +. Parks Il
Bros. were on the note at the time it was
brought to him and that instead OF indorslng
the not in the usual way, he, at the request
of +. f. Parks, signed his name between
the tn other signatures; that the note was
discounted at the Peoples National Bank,
Watervile, and not being paid at maturity
suit was brought by the bank against plain
tiff Atkinson and his property seized and
sold on execution to satisfy the Judgment
in part.
Defendants say that the note in question
WAS for the sole benefit of +. f.. Parks !;
that plaintiff knew that fact and that the
firm name of +. f. Parks and Bros. was
not on the note at the time it was indorsed
by plaintiff, but vas afterward put on by
f. L. Parks without authority. Defen-
dints introduce the testimony of Dir. n. G.
IL. Pulsifer, president of the Peoples Bank,
to prove that F. L. Parks applied for loan
of s250O upon his own name and the name
of w ID. Atkinson, that the bank declined to
make the loan and that few days after F.
+. Parks brought this note in suit into the
bank with only the names of F. +. Parks
AID W. d. Atkinson upon it, and that there
ia the presence of the president of the bank
the name of F. l. Parks & Bros. was in
dorset on the note by F. +. Parks. The
testimony of W. S. Parks was introduced
by defendants to prove that in August,
1881, he saw i. +. Parks in Bangor with a
note indorsed by +. f. Parks and w. ID
Atkinson, which +. F.. Parks endeavored TO
get discounted but failed. And in this con-
nection the defendants call attention TO the
ia I tha, the wort Bangor" had once been
written in tie note in ques ion and alter
wari partially ,rased and the word Water
wire written in place of it. Plaintiff re-
plies that though he did sign note for
$500 with r. h Parks alone. just before
the present note was given, that +. Il.
Parks afterwards brought back the former
note and tore it up in the presence Of
plsi.fif. ThA leculiar and unusual cir
cumstances surrounding the giving
of this note in suit and the
subsequent proceedings have made re-
markable fighting ground as will be seen
from the fact that the case has been twice
tried and tr icr taken to the law court and
has been warmly contested once more.
Trial unfinished d. ID. Stewart for plain
tia; S. s. Brown and S. j. Walton for
defendant.
Some rather startling testimony was
given by the libellsnt in the contested suit