Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1899-01-03
TIE POPLAR CASE.
RRYANT's PoNp, Dec. %, IL

Editor Dcmocrds
The report OF Dudley Va. Forest Paper
Co. In your last issue Was inaccurate,
aud wish to rectifv It.
The hearing In the case OF Ansel
Dudley Of Brysnt's Pond vs.. the Forest
Paper Co ~ Yarmouth WAS held At the
Office ~ Bird & Bradley Of Portlsnd.
Dec -. before Hon. Charles y. Wood
ward Of Bangor as auditor. Hon. J w.
Svmonds az Portland and II. W. Oskes.
Esa OF Auburn, appeared "a counsel
/ for the plsin'iff, and Louis Brsndeis ~
Boston and Bird & Bradley Of Portland
for the defendants.
MANY different individuals In Oxford
County for number OF years shipped
wood 10 the Forest Paper Co. through
Mr.. Dudley, receiving pay In accordance
with the survey OF the Forest Paper Co.,
and there were numerous complaints
that the survey fell short OF the actual
amount delivered. This Was brought
! TO the attention Of Mr.. Hammond, the
managing proprietor OF the firm OF tn"
/ Forest Paper Co.. at various times, but
he slwsvs declared that q proper meas
urement was given. and that the wood
was measured at LIS cubic feet 10 the
cord.
The plaintiff claimed that during all
the period while Mr.. Dudley furnished
wood to the company, an allowance OF
four inches per cord WAS taken by the
surveyor at Yarmouth upon every cord
OF well packed wood, which would
amount TO shout one-twelfth OF each
cord, and on the whole amount shipped
during the years covered by the suit
would make 4 difference OF between ten
and fifteen thousand cords.
Considerable evidence was introduced
as to the taking of the four inches, and
while IL WAS not claimed by the defend.
ants that the law entitled them TO such
a claim, II WAS directly stated by one OF
their surveyors. who surveyed for sir
yesrs Of the period, that he had taken
such sn allowance for every cord OF well
packed wood.
The defence Is largely on technical
grounds, chief among which Ia the claim
that the present co-psrtnership WAS
formed Nav 80, 1889, and that the plant
III In his action could not recover be-
yond that date; to which the plaintiff
replies that Mr.. Dudley was requested
by the new company 10 continue hi;
shipments, and WAS assured that the new
company would take the place OF thu
old and assume Its obligations; ant
further, that II the defendants should In
sist that they had nothing to do with TIT
old company, and should start the &C
count with May 30th. 1889. they woulc
be deprived Of q credit balance from th'
dealings Of the old firm, which would
have existed Mt that time, Of e65, 900
which would leave the present firm will
an Indebtedness to the plaintiff evel
larger In amount than he claims In hi
writ.
While not claiming to be entitled to
measurement Of four feet four inches II
. height for cord, and asserting tina
, their surveyors did not take four fee
and four inches, the defendants never
theless introduced eight or ten WOO
surveyors from different places, mostl.
in Cumberland County, who testified
that il was proper thing to take fou
feet four inches, and that they invariabl.
did so.
II such an allowance was made by tn
surveyor, a very severe drain upon Mr.
Dudley's pocketbook, In the course o
his large transactions with the company
must have resulted.
The case will be reported by Tn
: auditor later and will be looked for b.
: many people with much interest.