The Somerset reporter., 1894-03-29
Somerset s. j. Court.

1hur~iag, Mr.. 22-The following
jurors were excused Lyman g. Brown.
Bingham W. II. Totman. Fairfield: ".
{. simmons, Arson, Charles T.. Warren.
Norridgcwock. The first jury trial was
opened, it being the suit Of Mary
Jewell Of Canaan against George f.
Jewell, to obtain possession of "A certain
farm in Canaan. The plaintiff. after
the death OF her husband, Arson Jewell.
came into possession Of the premises in
question and decided them to her son
George. the defendant. taking a mort
gage back to secure her maintenance
The plaintiff testified that the room as
signed to her was cold in the winter,
the plaster being off the ceiling to
considerable extent. that she was not
furnished with sufficient food and cloth
ing; that the defendant swore at her
and at one time used personal violence
toward her; that the family OF defendant
treated her uukindly and used improper
language toward her; that plaintiff re-
fused for some time to deliver to her the
mortgage Of the premises.
Mrs. Laforest Jewett, "A step-daughter
testified that she had heard the defend
ants wife use harsh language toward
the plaintiff and had many times found
the plaintiff crying. Mr.. Barrett,
hrothcr-in-law of the plaintiff testified
that his wife had frequently sent food
to the plaintiff, both cooked and I'M
cooked, because she thought the plaintiff
needed food. Plaintiff admitted. on
cross examination, that if Washington.
the unmarried son, could have lived
with her at Georges she would have
been contenled; that she had considera-
bic anxiety in regard to Washington's
welfare; that she always felt she had
wronged Laforest and Washington, her
other sons, by deciding premises to
George, the defendant.
Friddy, Mar. 23-The case Mary Jew
ell VS. George +. Jewell was continued
The defendant claims that plaintiff was
dissatisfied because George would not
support Washington, and that she was
instigatcd by Washington to prosecute
this suit for his benefit. Defendant
testified that he had always provided
well for his mother; that she had good
food and clothing; tint the plaster in
the room had fallen off since the trial,
and was not large place; that he re-
fused to have Washington live there
because he could not support him in
idleness.
The defendant was coroborated on
certain points by the testimony of his
wife, daughter and daughters husband
Counsel occupied one hour in making
their arguments.
This being the first jury Trial Judge
Emery made some preliminary remarks
defining clearly the province of the
jury as distinguished from that of the
presiding justice. He then charged the
jury in an impartial manner, plainly
indicating the questions of facts to be
decided by the jury. After being out
about one hour the jury returned ver-
diet for the defendant. This is the
second trial of this action, the verdict
being alike at both trials. 5. $. Brown
for pl; intin'; Walton x Walton for de
PENDANT.
One of the plaintiffs witnesses in the
above case, laforest Jewell, was not in
the court room at the afternoon session
when called, aud upon his appearance,
later, the presiling Justice adjudged him
guilty of contempt and fined him 81 and
ordered him to stand committed till the
same was raid Mr.. jewell paid the
fine.
Durrcll vs. Stanley, assigned for trial
has been settled and entry of neither
party made.
The grand jury reported this morning
and were finally discharged. The whole
number OF indictments found is p, of
which y are for violation of the pro-
hibitory law, qhe following indictments
are made public: Edward Bison, liquor
nuisance; Robert W. IIaines, liquor
nusancc Smith Whittier, liquor nut
sance; George T.. Washburn, liquor
nuisance; Edwin c. Heselton. liquor
nuisance; George b. Fairgreve, liquor
nuisance: Walter Pierce, liquor nui-
sance; Henry Burgess, common seller;
Selden C.. Scammon, liquor nuisance
Harry Adams, drinking house and tip
pling shop; sullivan Newton, common
seller; Frank T. Farren, common seller;
Everett b. Quint, common seller; Henry
Mckinney, common seller; Henry Wash
burn, common seller; William Howard.
common seller; Fred c. Dinsmore, com
mon seller; Benjamin Hilton, common
seller; Thomas Barley, common seller;
Nicholas W. Murphy, common seller;
larceny; Frank Hutchinson and John
Hutchinson, larceny; Fred Withee.
fraud.
NV lIihl IiSi was again NhIbu liilN
morning, and several new assignments
for trial made. several cases continued
and quite number defaulted.
The referees in the case Charles r.
Whittemore vs.. Thompson 4 lIowes for
balance of account reported to the court
awarding the plaintiff SG3.51. The
claim was for balance on account.
amounting to SlGS -.
Walton & Walton for PIN; Forrest
Goodwin for Defts.
SATURDAY, Narch 24-Wm. II. Leayilt
vs.. Romandel O. Hight and VIM. IL.
Leavitt vs. George III. Pishon.
These actions are tried together. the
subject matter being some - tons of
hay originally belonging TO Defendant
Hight. Plaintiff claims that in Novem-
Der, 1891, defendant was summoned to
disclose in the office of Merrill & Coffin
on execution in favor of one Page, and
having disclosed certain amount of
hay. plaintiff paid the amount of cxecu-
ton and costs for Hight aud alleges
that defendant then and there in consid
Grafton thereof sold and agreed to de.
liver to plaintiff the hay in question;
that defendant afterwards refused to de-
liver the hay and thereupon plaintiff re-
plevicd the hay; that subsequent to this
Richard w. Brown attached the hay
in suit against Hight and thereupon
the plaintiff replevied the hay again by
suit against the attaching officer, Geo.
A. Pishon. at that time sheriff of SOM
erset county.
Defendants claim that the alleged sale
of the hay in the office of Merrill Il