Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1895-02-19

interest from the date OF the VIII.
The traverse jurors reported for duty
Thursday moruing, according 10 the or
der of the court, aud were empaneled AS
follows:
FIRST TRAVERSE JURY.
james W. Chapman, Porter, Foreman.
william Allen, Denmark.
Abel Andrews, Albany.
Eden u. Andrews, STOW.
Edmund VI. Bailey, Andover.
T.. c. Chamberlain, Bethel.
Geo. A. Charles, Fryebufg.
Howard Charles, Lowell.
Hiram 4. Consnt, Buckheld.
Charles Cotton, Hiram.
Gideon Ellis, Canton.
+. L. Harrington, Greenwood.
SECOND TRAVERSE JURY.
". W. Pride. Norway, Foreman.
John V. Thurlow, Hartford.
Elisha d. Fuller, Rumford.
Henry ". Green. Waterford.
Samuel q. Grover, Mason.
John Hodsdon, Brownfield.
Albion Holman, Dixfcld.
W. ii. Morrow, Bethel.
A. ". Robbins, Roxbury.
Roscoe l.. Staples, Oxford.
Chandler Swift, Paris.
Ira o. Swift, Sumner.
Z. G. Wing, Woodstock.
INTERMEDIATES.
Albion TAYLOR, Paris.
A. ". Whiiehouse, Norway.
E.G. Wing OF Woodstock, drawn as
traverse Juror. was reported sick by his
physician, and was excused.
rue GRAND JUgy's WORK.
The members of the grand jury were
all on hand at the opening OF court, and
from o'clock Tuesday afternoon until
Wednesday night they were quite busy.
Wednesday seemed 10 be devoted TO the
new county seat, and South Paris men
were plenty around the grand jury lob
by. The grand jury was discharged
Thursday morning, after reporting the
following indictments:
State W.. Charles u. Lyman.
breaking and entering and larceny.
State ". Frank Robinson.
Breaking ami entering and larceny.
State vs.. Isaac Moody.
Assault with intent 10 commit rape.
state ~. Roscoe Gray.
single sale.
state vs. Henry Holland.
Common seller.
The respondents in the burglary in-
dictments are the ADdover post office
burglars, now serving sentence i'm
posed BY the United States court. The
post Office being in store, the burglars
have made themselves amenable TO both
federal and state laws.
Rose G.. Esmes VS.. Addison +. Her
rick, administrator. This action was
brought 10 recover the penalty named in
u bond (s69l) for the conveyance upon
certain conditions Of farm in Albany.
The bond was given by one AloDzo Fl
field, November ), 1890, 10 the plaintiff.
Fifeld died and the defendant was
appointed administrator. Plaintiff
claimed a performance OF the condi-
tons named in the bond. Defendant
that the plsintiif had failed so 10 DO and
that the bond was forfeited. The evil
dence showed that there were some ne
gotistions between the parties before
suit for the purpose Of adjusting the
matter, but nothing came Of IL, and this
action was brought, the balance due
as plaintiff claimed having been deposit
ed With defendant. The case WAS tried
by the first jury Thursday. Verdict for
defendant. Frye for plaintiff. Herrick
4 Park and Swasey for defendant.
John II. Hamlin vs. Frank l.. Brett.
Parties live in Norway. In September,
1894, plaintiff, a member Of the grocery
firm of Hamlin 4 Bicknell, who deal in
bicycles as side business, traded de-
PENDANT new bicycle for horse which
defendant represented as sound. The
horse proved unsound, and the plaintiff
returned it to the defendant. This suit
was brought to recover pay for the
bicycle, which is still in the possession
of the defendant. After the plaintiffs
evidence was in, defendants counsel
moved uOn-suit on the ground that the
action WAS not properly brOught-that
according TO the plaintiffs own state
ment OF the matter, he had not lost
title TO the bicycle, and could not re-
cover pay for his own property. The
court ordered the case nOn-suited. KIM
ball & Son for plaintiff, Wright for
defendant.
Freeman j. Farrar VS.. Walter |. Russ. |
Plaintiff resides In Sumner, defendant In
This action was brought to |
recover the value of shepherd dog be-
longing to plaintiff and shot by the de-
PENDANT last August. Plaintiff trades In |
sheep and cattle somewhat, and this dog |
had been trained to drive stock, and was
regarded AS very valuable dog by his
owner, who had refused an offer OF $50
for him. The evidence showed that, at
he time Of the shooting, the plaintiffs
son and another man were at the de-
PENDANTS home after some sheep and
lambs. and that while the men were In
he barn. the dog was left outside near a
lamb which had been tied. The defend
ant meantime came with a companion
across the fields toward the barn, and
having a shotgun in his hands fired both
barrels at the dog, killing him. De-
Ience was that the dog was worrying the
amb, and defendant thought, killing
him. Practically the only conflict OF
testimony was in regard to the explains
ion made BY the defendant after he had
hot the dog, which plaintiffs witnesses
law Ia different from what he now gives.
,wasey for plaintiff. Davis and Hersey
'or defendant. Verdict guilty, damages
so .0S.
CRIMINAL BUSINESS.
The dog case, which was the last civil
.ase for trial, was given to the jury Sat
friday morning, and the criminal docket
vas then taken up.
In the case Of State vs. Kingman g.
'erham for larceny, the Judgment Of