Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1895-10-15
COURT OFFICERS.

Arthur +. Moody, Stoueham.
William Ii. Pearson, Woodstock.
Charles II. Pugsley, Porter.
II. o. Rowe, Peru.
Edwin S. Smith, Bethel.
A. l.. Soule. Oxford.
5. A. Stevens, Norway.
Byron c. Waite, Canton.
John Y. Wood, Buckfield.
FIRST TRAVERSE JURY.
Joseph c. Bennett, Canton, Foreman.
James ID. Ames, Brownfield.
Edgar +. Bsrrows, Paris.
Arthur B. Briggs, Sumner.
James l.. Chase, Paris.
Harry ID. Cole, Greenwood.
William c. Cole, Norway.
Arthur NJ. Deering, Denmark.
Don A. Gates, Dixfield.
Harrison Guptill, Porter.
Cyrus ii. Hayes, Oxford.
Arthur G.. Howe, Hanover.
SECOND TRAVERSE JURY.
Olcott b. Poor, Andover, Foreman.
Herbert +. Irish, Hartford.
j. W. Kilgore, Newry.
+. A. Knight, Rumford.
G. Perley McAllister, Lowell.
Willie II. Packard, Hebron.
Daniel w. Pierce, Hiram.
John J. Pike, Fryeburg.
Robbins Plummer, Waterford.
W. Ii. Porter, Rumford.
Newton +. Richardson, Bethel.
Albert l.. Whitman, Bethel.
A. W. Libby of Bucktield aud a. l..
+. Pike Of Norway were excused finally
from service on the jury, and I. g.
Larry OF Gilead was excused till the
next Monday morning.
The bar was we'll filed with attor-
neys at the opening OF court, among
them being Messrs. A. ;. Austin OK Paris
Hill; George A. Wilson and James ).
Wright Of South Paris; c. 4. Holt, Ii.
c. Davis, ). 5. Stearns, +. r. Smith ana
NJ l.. kimball OF Norway; Z. Is. Ben
son of North Paris; a. +. Herrick, T..
c. Park and Il. A. Frye OF Bethel
George ID. Bisbee and John {. Swasey
of Rumford Falls; John Z. Swasey OF
Canton; John :. Harlow and John X.
Trask OF Dixfield; Oscar ii. Hersey and
Thomas ). Bridgham OF Buckteid; b
X. Hutchins OF Rumford; George Hazen
of oxford; L. f.. Hastings Of Fryeburg
+. (. Fox and T.. +. Gentleman o.
kezar Falls; George +. Clifford oil
Cornish; f.. c. Walker OF Brighton; {.
A. Hight Of Portland; Jesse Libby oil
Gorhsm, y. III.
Immediately after the organization oil
the court the call Of the docket was pro-
ceeded with, aud most OF the cases were
continued. Notwithstanding the eN-
pectations that many had had OF long
term, the trial list as made up consisted
Of only fourteen cases, quite number
of which were simply placed on the list
To be disposed Of, and not for trial.
The iuries were excused, aud a Few
minor matters were all that occupied
the attention Of the court Tuesday after
noon.
LIBBY vs.. TowLE.
Moses VI. Libby W.. George W. Towle.
Parties live at Porter and kezar Falls.
This was SANDER case, the second
one OF that nature tried in this court In
many years. Libby, the plaintiff, came
10 Porter IA few years since, and in 1881
opened n grocery store there. He mar
ried a niece OF Mr.. Towle, the defendant,
who l. merchant OF considerable wealth
and influence. Mr.. and Mrs. Libby fin
ally separated, and in the spring OF 1892
an arrangement OF the property matters
was made. Mr.. Libby took the real es-
tate, Mrs. Libby the personal property,
consisting Of the furniture, etc, in the
boarding house owned by them. In or
der to dispose OF the property together,
Mr.. Libby took the furniture, giving for
Il note for $3.50 with mortgage on
the furniture.
This note and mortgage were put In
the possession OF Mr.. Towle, and placed
in his desk. Later he noticed that the
note had not been signed, and when Mr..
Libby came into the store one day, he
mentioned the matter TO him. MIR. Lib
bv said that IL that was the case 1t was
an oversight, and he would sign H.
Towle laid the note and mortgage on the
counter, and while MIR. Libby was sign
ing went 10 another part OF the store 10
wait on customer. When he returned,
according TO Mr.. Libby's statement, nc
placed the note inside the mortgage, and
the mortgage in the safe. According to
Mr.. Towle's story he did not see the
note, but picked up the mortgage, sup
posing the note WAS inside IL, and laid II
away.
la December Of that same year. an at
tempt was made TO effect a settlement,
but il was discovered that the note was
missing, and Mr.. Libby declined to pay
the note unless it was produced. Mr..
Towle thereupon, according 10 Mr.. Lib
by's story, told Mr.. Libby that he
thought he libby had stolen the note,
or knew where il was, or had destroyed
il. Moreover he made remarks OF the
same purport at various times and places
and TO various people-as one OF the at
torneys expressed it, that was 1.-THE bur
den OF his song" The result was that,
owing especially TO Mr.. Towle's stand
ing and influence in the community, Mr..
Iibby's standing was injured, and his
credit was damaged, so that his creditors
became alarmed, and attached his goods
and closed up his business. For the ip-
iuries thus sustained Mr.. Libby sues for
the sum Of 5000.
In defence Mr.. Towle asserts that he
never saw the note after he gave 1t to
Mr.. Libby to sign; that he did not &C
cuse Mr.. Libby of stealing the note, but
said he ''thought Moses knew where 1t
went to-" therefore he did not accuse
him of crime. and his words we're not
actiouable; and that his talk that he
made about the affair had nothing to do
with Mr.. Libby's business troubles,
which were solely and entirely the re-
suit of his own lack OF business capacity.
Hon. John =. Swasey for plaintiff;
Hon. George F. Clifford Of Cornish and
Edgar F. Gentleman Of kezar Falls for
defendant.
This case occupied two days, being
given to the jury about O'Clock Thurs
day. After about an hour and half the
jury brought in verdict for the plant
iii. $4,000.
Norway National Bank vs.. W. T..
Cloutier ct al. This was suit brought
on a note for $1,000, given In 1892. The
defendants were interested 10 the Nor
way Granite Co., OF which Henry Nj.
Bearce, president Of the bank, was treas
urer. Defendants say that the note In
question was an accommodation note,
given on the solicitation OF MIR. Bearce
to raise money for the use Of the Gran
tie Co. that they had been assured by
Mr.. Bearce that the note had been ar
ranged; aud that the defendants had
had in their hands at one time sufficient
funds of the Granite Co. to pay the
note. This case was taken up Saturday
morning, and, after hearing the evidence,
the court ordered judgment on the note.
S. S. Stearns for the bank; Noble &
Crockett for defendants.
Norway Masonic Trustees VS.. Arthur