The Somerset reporter., 1894-03-29

Monday, March, 20 In Moore vs..
| Emery ct ais. and Emery ct ais. vs..
Moore. the sickness of one of the parties
prevented the trial of the actions, and
| the former was referred to Turner Bus
well, Esq, and the latter was defaulted
and continued for Judgement.
| Reports of references have been filed
| in the following cases: Nm. W. Young
vs.. Patrick Foley ct ais, action to recov-
er the value of 100 bushels of oats
which defendants by written memoran-
dun had agreed to deliver. F. w. How
ey, referee awards the plaintiff the sum
of S25 and taxable costs. S. 5. lIaekett
for plaintiff, J. NJ. Sanborn for defend
ant. John Mullen vs.. Eben Ladd, action
to recover damages for false representa-
tons in the sale of horse. j. w Man
son and F. W. Hoycy, referees, find
neither party entitlad to damages or
costs. A. Simmons Esq, for plaintiff; j.
j. Parln for defendant. Chas z. Whit
temore vs.. Frank Thompson, ct al.
| Action on account for meat, etc. Orrin
A. Priest and Nathan Fo Ter. referees,
award plaintiff damages to the amount
of SCI, 81. Walton Il Walton for plain
| tiff; Forrest Goodwin for defendent
IOu. AlbtIi i4tHNll VI aliitus, equity
commissioner. was in town Monday.
While here Judge Emery called his at
tention to the desirability of having the
the seats for the jurors in the court
house moved further towards the west
end of the room, so as to give the jurors
sitting at the east end better opportu-
nifty to hear and observe witness and
also to see all plans, etc, drawn upon
the black board.
| The trial in the 20 actions of Sheldon
Reed vs.. Wm. +. knights was resumed
at O'Clock. Testimony of John W.
Steward. who surveyed the premises in
dispute, was introduced, showing the
courses and admeasuremcuts of the
boundaries. Other testimony of less i'm
portance was introduced, after which
the cases were Withdrawn from the jury
and reported to the law court for deter
mination. Merrill & Cover for plaintiff,
Walton & Walton for defendant
Frank Hutchinson and John Hutchn-
son of Starks were arraigned on charge
of larceny of an overcoat, and pleaded
guilty. They appeared TO be boys of
about II and lG years of age. On repre-
sensations made by :. j. Walton, Esq,
and by consent of the county attorney,
the case was continued for sentence till
the September term. and the boys being
on good behavior. their personal recog-
nizanee was taken in the sum of 500.
Taesdoy, March 27-The following in
dictments were settled: State vs.
George Pierce, Geo. b. Fairgrieves.
Smith Whittier, Edward Bison, Edwin
| c. Heselton, George L. Washburn, Rob-
ert W. IIaines, all for liquor nuisance
Respondents pleaded guilty and were
each fined 5000 and costs.
Charles F.. Whttemore ct al vs.. Ed
ward n. Merrill, action to recover S7ls.-
81 and interest This action having
been twice tried before, some difficulty
was experienced in securing panel
Several jurors We're excused because of
opinions they had formed in reference to
| the case.
The plaintiffs claim that in March
| 1885 the defendant asked Charles p.
Whittemore and Eleazer Clark to give
bonds for the release of one Ellsworth
Dunlap, who had been arrested on a
bastardy process, stating that the only
risk there was in the case was in the
prisoner running away; Mr. Baker, the
Tailor, coming in, said the bond was not
a common bond and that there were
other risks; that thereupon defendant
| repeated his statement and said if Whit
temore and Clark would sign the bond
and Dunlap did not run away, he, Mer-
rill, would protect them from harm and
| they would not have cent to pay; that
thereupOn they signed the bond; that
Baker objected to Clark as surety, and
John p Whittemore was secured as sure
| ty. that prisoner did not run away. but
was not surrendered at the proper time
and upon suit on bond plaintiffs were
obliged to pay amount sued fo in this
| suit. &
Plaintiff was cross-eXamined by Mr.,
| Heath, counsel for defendant, at great
length, occupying two hours or more.
| The testimony of John p Whittemore
was brief as he was not present during
the conversation and was principally
concerned with signing his uame to the
| bond at his house during the afternoon
Plaintiffs put in deposition of Eleazer
Clark.
After plaintiffs rested their case the
Court ordered non-suit for misjoinder of
| plaintiffs. and the action will either be
taken to the law court for decision upon
the question of misjonder, or be tried
anew in the names Of the plaintiffs sep
arately. Forrest Goodwin for Plffs !;
II. NJ. Heath for Deft.
Wednesday,. March 2S-Ambrose +
Sprague vs. Elbridge T. Lander. Action
TO recover the sum of SS4.23, alleged to
be due plaintiff for personal labor of his,
performed for defendant in the summer
of 1888. Plaintiff and his son claim that
IA contract was made with defendant
whereby the son Allen was to work for
defendant five months if he liked, for $40
per month; that he worked four months
five and oDe-half days and plaintiff has
not been paid. Plaintiff claims that he
always had had the wages of his son and
controlled his time,
The defendant claims the contract was
for five months entire, that the contract
was made by one Fuller and by the son
with the consent and authority of the
plaintiff, that the contract was broken by
the son before the five months had ex-
pred al d consequently the father could
not recover under the contract. Verdict
for plaintiff, SSG.43
J. j. Parlin for PIT. Noble & Crockett
for Deft
Stilmau B. futile VS.. Stanley +. Nay,
action to recover the sum of $125. Plain
tiff claims that on February IS, 1893, de-
PENDANT came into his office, and calling
him out, asked the loan of Sl25, saying
he was in a hard place and if plaintiff
could not let him have the amount he
should have to look elsewhere; that
plaintiff loaned him the money.
Defendant claims that he was engaged