The Somerset reporter., 1896-04-02
Somerset s. j. Court.

Deputies: W. F. Mutt, John smith, Ruel
Williams, +. l.. Harding.
Thursday, March 26-S. S. Parsons,
executor, VS. Marcus p. Hobart and Will
lis {. Hobart. Action ON note for $3.50
given by defendants to one Russell. who
is now deceased. Plaintiff discontinues
as to Marcus Z. Hobart Plaintiff al
leges that defendants were at one time
in business in Minneapolis and borrowed
money from Russell, giving the note in
suit and mortgage on "A lot of land in
Minneapolis Defendant alleges that
Willis G. Hobart sold out to Marcus u.
Hobart, and that Marcus p. Hobart in
October, 1894, sent to the plaintiff quit
claim deed of the lot of land in Mime
apolis, which plaintiff accepted; that the
land was worth as much as the amount
of the note. and that if not worth as
much as the note then plaintiff could
recover only the amount of the differ
ence. Plaintiff denies that he accepted
the deed either in whole or in part paw
ment; that he did tell Willis {. Hobart
that he would take 5000 in settlement of
the note, or would take the land at its
value, if he could have a warranty deed
and the balance in cash. Verdict for
plaintiff by order of court fer S99l TO-
Merrill II Cover for plaintiil; Danforth
Il Gould for defendant.
Bunker VS. Caswell, defaulted. I'VE
VS. Atwood, neither party. Nye VS. Hug
gins, neither party. Costello VS. Miller,
neither party.
Friday March, 27-Elizabeth Surname
was granted divorce from Henry John
Surname for desertion.
A
ley 60 oh paid 500 and costs for being
common sellers of Intoxicating liquors.
Mrs Ellen Phillips VS.. Andrew Hawes
administrator of the estate of Emeline
Williams. Plaintiff brings suit for over
POO days, labor at 81 90 per day. she
alleges that she attended Mrs Williams
as nurse for long time, nights as well
as days. Mrs. Williams was sick with
generous trouble and suffered great
deal of pain, requiring constant care
and attention. Plaintiff claims that the
disease was not only painful to Mrs.
Williams but the odor was obnoxious to
all, aud there was more or less danger
in attending her. DR.. Bumps of Dexter
testified to the condition of the sore and
that the plaintiff assisted him in dress
ing it, Other witnesses testified to
labor which they had seen plaintiff per-
form for Mrs. Williams.
The defendant claimed that the plain
tiff was merely n visitor and what labor
she did was merely little acts of neigh
borly kindness; that all necessary care
and nursing We're supplied by hired at
PENDANTS and relatives; that the plaintitf
was present much of the time and vol
unfairly assisted in some ways; that the
plaintiff said repeatedly in the presence
of several witnesses, that she was not
ga dollar friend not "a money friend"
and would not feel right to take any
thing from her etc. That several
times Mrs Williams offered pay but
Mrs Phillips said she did not want any
money. a verdict for plaintiff of S241.-
so. w. b. Brown and Forrest Goodwin
for plaintiff; Walton u Walton for de-
fendant.
Arguments in the equity case, Lewis
Anderson " Co., vs.. Mary c. Brainard
ct ais. were heard by the Court The
evidence in the case was gotten out on
Monday. Judge Strout reserves his
decision +. n. Merrill for the plaintiff,
S. W. Gould for the defendants.
Lewis Anderson & Co brought this
suit against Mary {. Branard To compel
her to transfer lG shares capital stock in
the MiIburn Co.. which plaintiffs
bought and paid for in 1894, to be de-
livered in October. Bah was subsequent.
ly amended. making :. W Could, {. A..
Marston and \. &. Blunt correspondents.
Respondents say it WAS impossible to
transfer stock as per contract, stock be-
ing mt time hypothecated to Simeon l..
nf Il "A,
further that Mary {. Brainard rescinded
contract when she found it impossible to
deliver stock, and rendered back money
to plaintiffs; that correspondents took
stock as innocent purchasers believing
that contract with plaintiffs was rcseind-
ed.
Referee reports We're filed as follows
J.. w. Savage vs. {. II. Bradley, decision
for plaintiff for S39.75; Edwin W. Cook
VS. Henry \. Thompson, decision for
plaintiff for S2l.25.
Tueslay, Mrch ,3l-erhe following
divorces have been g9,ntcd John
Weymouth from Addie Weymouth, for
cruel and abusive treatment; Maria l..
Furbush from Ward J. Furbush. for
adultery, custody of all minor children
given to libellant; Edwin J. Gilman
from Emma +. Gilman for cruel and
abusive treatment, custody of girl to
lihellant, boy tn lihellee; Edward +.
Dunlap from Rosina Dunlap, for deser-
ton; Lillian NJ. Towne from Thomas 4.
Towne, for cruel and abusive treatme t
and non support, custody of minor child
rem to mother; Nyrtline Surette from
Iacharie Sufettr, for cruel and abusive
treatment.
A motion to set aside the verdict has
been filed in the suit of Mrs. Ellen
Phillips VS. Andrew IIawes, adminstra-
tor de bonis non with will annexed of
Emeline Williams.
Amos NJ. Frv ~ j. W. l.. Arthur, +.
G. Coffin and Omar Clark and Amos NJ.
Fry VS. +. @. Coffin and Omar Clark.
These two suits are being tried together,
the plaintiff, disseminating AS to Arthur
and Coffin. The plaintiff is an attorney
at law residing at Bryson City, n. G.
The defendants were in the business of
dealing in timber lands, etc, Mr.. Coffin
and Mr.. Arthur residing in North
Carolina, and Mr.. Clark residing in
Maine. Plaintiff brings suits for pro
fessional services aud money expended
in purchasing land. for expenses, etc,
in all in the two suits to
-, 63l39. Plaintiff testified at some
length To services performed by him, his
by the defendants, etc, and
iat odnccd various dispositions to show
the extent aud character of services and
their value aud the reasouahlrness of his
charges. Defendant Clark, Who deteuds