Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1894-03-13
MOCK COURT.
PARIS GRANGE FURNISHES srpnr ros
MANI SPECTATORS.


noon they entertained q large audience
With q mock court ~hich wss . very
eteditsble and sucs~ssfui affair aud
worthy q more detailed report than the
crowded columns ~ the Democrat viii
allow us TO give.
The ccart ofiicers xere Harrison Far
rsr, Judge: Mrs. q. q. Curtis, Clerk /;
Miss Grace Harlow. Steaogrspher; Her.
bert Tucker. sheriff: II. l.. Hammond
and Ambrose y. swift. Dspaty shesifi. /;
Henry u. Hammond, Crier; Frank J..
stsrblri. Messenger.
After the calling of the docket and
continuation cf the usual number 81
Gases. the csse of .'Jo-ephlne Angcs
Lawrence VI. Josiah tz~reocc," an ac-
tion for di,occe and allmcny, wss Get
down Zoe TRIAL.
After some challenges % those ~ho had
fortnei an opinion the Jury VAS empsn-
neled az follows: Mrs. Gertrude Ham
mond, Hosea lsonney, Arthur Tyler,
Mr.. Gertrude T~itchell. Ieonsrd Whit
man. Winfield :. StArblrf. :. Porter
Stearus. Mrs. Nathaniel Rove, Mrs..
Hannah Carter, \. n. Andrews, Mrs.
Cassie starhlri, aud Mrs. Gen. Davis.
~ every person on the jury wss
candidate Zoe foreman q ballet Was ne<r-
e.sary aud the Lucky lot of sitting In the
- omea's row" fell upon Winfield =.
starblr,i, sho APPEARED to enjoy IL.
=. VI. Ming. ksl, attorney Tor the
plaintiff, and to whosc efforts the suc-
cess 20 the ent.rtslnmsnt are saii Ia be
largely due, oIsnci the case In an able
manner hy the resdlng 81 the writ. This
document Vas an elaborate affair detail.
Ing the usual allegations In regard to
marriage, the conduct of the plaintiff as
q true aud faithful Wife etc, and that ~
garlless 10 hi. marriage VOWS the de-
fend.nt had violated his promise Of un-
diving affection and msltrrato,i and ahus-
Ell the plaintiff until fortearsnce VAS no
longer a virtue. That he had cooliy ln-
forned the pLintlf that he needed more
time Ia smoke and enjoy himself aud ths'
she must split aud carry the wood, carry
the water, build the flrcs, feed aud milk
i've cows. clean aud harness hls horse,
black his boots and clean hls teeth and
that when the ssi plaintiff did NJ last
refuse his demands he did pound, wound
and msngle her, csusing serious Injury
which lead Ia a separation 10 this un.
happy couple. by reason 10 which con-
duet the plsinllf asked that the bonds Of
matrimOny .hoald be reut ssandsr and
also that the d-fenisnt should be CON-
PEELED Ia pay her q valuable consldsra-
ton In lawful money by way of sllmony.
several witnesses we're sworn To "tell
the truth. the whole truth aud anything
but the truth" and they did
The testimony Was somewhat conflict
ing aud a. usual In case. 10 this nature,
Developed the fact that the near neigh
bors residing sithln q radius of i've or
slx mile. hsd Interested themselves In
the domestic iuielicitie. % Mr.. aud Mrs..
Lawrence % the usual extent.
IN. plaintiff. BY assistance % her at
torney snd the neighbors Who we're Ia
yorsble to her. made out right power
ful case, affecting the jury tn the extent
that some ~ them ssrv obliged TO hide
their face. IN concsssl their tears.
llon. Geo. y. Hammond, ~ithhls we'll
known ability. conducted the case for
Mr.. Lawrence. the defendant. The evil
dence given by the witnesses Toe the
defence tended 10 shos that the defend.
ant was "a Kinder one horse farmer
and had used her hetier'n she'd us-d him.
That her extraNagancc, conduct toward
other men. stc, had ~ell nigh ruined
him that hsr injuries we're reviewed by
having been throsu from carriage
while riding With another man and that
be had been Obliged Ia mortgage HI.
farm "a raise ''pln money" for her and
paw taxes on her invested funds. That
he had never struck nor kicked her bat
might have pat hls hand on her la ward
on blow which she aimed al him With
= rolling pin.
One % her '.jilici lovers" gave racy
testimony against the plaintiff, while
another Admirrr gave evidence Tor
which h. should have been committed 10
jail for ''aitsmpt Ia court"
lawyer" Ming aud Hammond srgu-
81 briefly aud eloqHeutly aud judge
farrar la a pointed charge Informed the
jury that the la~ VAS not ,ery -.
regarding actions for dlyo-, ~, :.
usual IN such cass.fie evidence "a.
u, Dut that having seen the
1a.ss.ses they ought to b. able to Judge
for themselves whether the allegations
had been sustained. sud that II he had
an opinion ~ the opsnin. 20 the case, he
had none nov.
After retiring the jury agreed without
delay. ani brOaghi In verdict for the
defendant. Plaintiffs counssl IL nov
considering the adyissbllity % appeal
ing the case to q higher court.
One Granger REMARKED that go trying
a scene conducted by farmers Mss truly
narrowing "-but a. his pun dh b",
reach the ear. % the court officers be
WAS not .j-siei from the room.