The Somerset reporter., 1896-01-09
Somerset s. j. Court.
DECEMBER TnRM, 1885.

BEN. $. COLLINS, County attorney
E. P yr1rs, sheriff
Deputies: Frank p. Pencil, 5. 5 Walker,
II. M Waugh, Simon Fox.
ThHrSddy, Jan Pin the ease of
Augusta Hilton V, inhabitants of Auson
a verdict for the plaintiff for SOD % was
returned. A. Simmons for plaintiff, b.
S. Collins and j. j. Parlin for defend
ant
G.. Allen VS. Isaac Y. Tibbetts, and
Wallace Bunker VS. the same. Action
on the case for defamation of character.
1t seems that on the morning of the
Fourth of July, some boys and young
men of Mercer village were celebrating
as they called it, and one of the acts of
the celebration was to take and haul
away a moving machine belonging to
the defendant Later in the morning,
the defendant saw the plaintiffs at the
post office in Mercer village, and, as
they allege, accused them in loud
voice in the presence of divers good
citizens of stealing and carrying away
his (defendant's) moving machine,
whereas in fact, the plaintiffs say that
they were not in the village at all at the
time when the machine was said to have
been taken and were not concerned in
the transaction. They do not claim to
have suffered great damage because of
this false accusation, but, as the counsel
claimed, bring these suits to establish
the untruthfulness of the accusation and
to clear their regulations of the stain
cast upon them by the defendant
public accusations. The examination of
the plaintiffs bringing out some of the
details of the nigh5s celebration, Great
ed considerable amusement, which was
hardly checked by the court, as every
body had to have a good laugh. The
defendant claims that the plaintiffs were
among the parties who carried off the
machine, but that he did not accuse
them of larceny, simply specifying them
as some of the parties who he bel eyed
carried off his machine. Verdict for
defendant in both cases. II. T. Croswell
and Forrest Goodwin for plaintiffs;
Walton & Walton for defendant
Friday, Dec 3-George E. Washburn
VS.. Caddie Rowell, action on account for
board. The plaintiff claims that the de-
PENDANT boarded at his hotel in the
spring of 1888, for a period of six weeks,
and that the bill for the same had never
been paid. The account with interest
amounts to 1884. The defendant adj
mits having boarded there and that the
bill has not been paid. She pleads the
statute of limitations and minority.
The plaintiff introduced two letters
written by the defendant to the plaintiff,
written six years now last past, and
since the defendant had arrived at the
age of majority, in which the defendant
promised TO pay the plaintiff as soon as
she could. The plaintiff also introduced
the testimony of MIR. Campbell, treasurer
of the hospital for the insane at Augusta,
to show that the defendant had been
paid sufficient money SO that she could
have fulfilled her promise to pay
plaintiff. The defendant introduced no
evidence, but claimed as a matter of law,
that the plaintiff was not entitled to re-
cover. The presiding justice ruled in
favor of the plaintiff and directed a
verdict for the plaintiff. The verdict
amounted to the sum of s39.24 W b.
Brown, for plaintiff, Merrill Il Cover,
for defendant.
Saturday, JCBg. 4-Crosby o. Howe
vs. William kltine. aelion 10 recover in.
terest due on eight promissory notes, in
terest payable annually. Crosby o.
Howe vs. William ktine, action To re-
cover amount due on two promiSsory
notes Crosby O. Howe vs. William
kleinc, acliou of trpver to recover for
the valne of certain personal property,
alleged 70 have been converted by d, =
fendant to his own use. 1t appears that
plaintiff was ut one time owner of a GER
tain farm in the town of DiXmont; that
he ent West for his health aid while in
Denver, Colo, learned through a certain
real estate firm that the defendant own
ed property in the city of Denver which
he desired to exchange for farm pro-
perty, that the parties finally made a
trade whereby they exchanged real
estate and plaintiff assumed the payment
of a mort gage Of $1,000 on the Denver
property. let defendant have money and
goods amounting to $1,000, taking from
him notes and mortgage on Dixmont
farm To secure the payment of the $1,000
and one-half of the mortgage on the
Denver property, $500, in all $4,000.
The defendant offered to prove in de-
ferce OF the two actions Ola notes that
the plaintiff used great fraud in secur-
ing the exchange Of real estate; that de
PENDANTS propcrt, in Denver MAS worth
$l7 900 and that the plaintiff represent
ed his farm in DiXmOnt to be worth as
much AS the Denver property; that, in
fact. the DiXmont property was only
worth about 81 300; that the plaintiff
showed the farm to the defendant when
snow was on the ground and made many
false and fraudulent statements CONGO m
ing the value aud productions of the
place. Ii appeared that the defendant
has previously brought suit in Penobscot
county to recover of the plaintiff the
damages for the fraud now pleaded in
defence of the first two actions here.
The court ruled that the defendant had
elected his remedy by bringing his
action for deceit and that he could not
Try the same issue in the suits here.
The court therefore directed verdict
for the plaintiff in the first two suits aud
the decision of the trOyer suit was left TO
the jury to decide. Ner1iets in above
cases were rendered as follows: In first
case, verdict for plaintiff, S297.79; in
second case. verdict for plaintil. $697 90 !;
in thrt case. verdict for defendant. 5
5. Brown for plaintiff; White and
Merrill x Cover for defendant.
The following divorces have been de
creed: Lizzie A. York from Water +.
\ Ork, for cause of gross and confirmed
habits of intoXcation, custody of minor
child given to libelant; Henry Hatch
from Winnie Belle Hatch, for adultery !;
Helen p Curtis from Geo. +. Curtis,
for cruel and abusive treatment; Della