The Somerset reporter. [volume] (Skowhegan, Me.) 1868-1909, 1899-03-30

c. W. ssALL. Stenogrdpher.
+. p. PENCIL, Sheriff.
CHESTER II. MILLS, Messenger.
Deputies: f. l.. HARpIs0, &. Is. HASKELL,
S. W. HERRIcK, e. A. MERRILL, Guy PKNNELL.
F. s. PARSONS.
Henry " ash burn vs. Edward Martin.
This suit Was brought to collect a bal
ance on note given by the defendant
for the sum $65 90 given Feb. z, 1895.
The defense WAS payment, and receipts
bearing different dates were produced TO
show it. The plaintiff acknowledged
the validity of one of these receipts for
$50 90, and alleged that the other two
receipts for $12 90 and S35 90 respec.
lively were forgeries. The plaintiff also
admitted payment of $40 90 for which
receipt was not produced. The real
question at issue was the validity of the
receipts in dispute. The case WAS tried
Thursday, was given to the jury about
$50 p. m. and the jury Friday morning
on opening the court returned a verdict
of $44 90 for the plaintiff A motion that
the verdict be set aside has been filed
by the defendant.
w. X. Jordan and George w. Cover
were counsel for the plaintiff, v alton IL
" alton for the defendant.
AT 10 30 Friday the grand jury report
ed II indictments and were discharged.
The indictments were for the following
offenses: Common seller, 8; travelling
seller of liquors, /; nuisance, /; single
sale, assault, /; extortion 2.
Nine men held in jail awaiting the
action of the grand jury were discharged
Friday, no indictments having been
hap ~
tramps.
Andrew Lanigan was arraigned, plead
guilty on an Indictment for assault and
having been in Jail some time awaiting
the action OF court was allowed to de
part on his own recognizance.
George Porter was arraigned, pleaded
guilty to an indictment for peddling liq-
uors and as he had been in jail 30 day or
more on charge If selling liquor, the
case was continued for sentence with
the understanding that there should be
no further violation of law by him.
Action ON the suit brought by l.. l..
Morrison against Ben Fairbrother, both
of Skowhegan, for rent, was defauted.
Daniel Lewis appeared for the plaintiff
and Forrest Goodwin for the defendant.
The curtis futile case 10 recover pay
for labor was settled by the defendant.
Forrest Goodwin appeared for the plant
III and A. X. Butler for the defendant.
Action on the case brought by John
G. Griffin, insurance agent of this town,
against Hilton ct al of Madison, to re-
cover insurance premium was defaulted
and settled. Forrest Goodwin appeared
for the plaintiff and c. A. WILDER of
Madison, for the defendant.
c. a. Merrill VS. Mary j. Healey Ac-
ton ON promissory note for SSS 06,
dated March II, 1897, given for store
account that was running during lum-
bering operation in the winter of 1897
10 the date of the note. The defendant
claimed that when the note was given
the plaintiff agreed to apply the proceeds
of certain lumber which was to be sold
by the plaintiff, to the payment of this
note If there should be enough to pay it
besides the other numbering expenses.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant
consented 10 let him appropriate forty
dollars of the proceeds of the lumber to
pay on a debt due him from her hus
band, Nathaniel NJ. Healey, and he also
claimed that he should hold twenty two
dollars and tifty-four cents more to pay
an account thar the defendant had at
his store after the note was given. The
defendant denied both of these claims
and claimed that these two sums, S62 45,
should be allowed on her note, leaving a
balance on the note of $22. which the
defendant should pay.
The case was given to the jury Friday
just before o'clock p. m. and Saturday
morning at the opening of court the
jury reported a verdict of $22 Al for the
plaintiff. 5. ". Gould and T. }. Young
for plaintiff, A. Simmons for the defend
ant.
Ray p. Longley of Norridgewock, was
arraigned on an Indictment for eXtortion,
pleaded not guilty and recognized with
sureties in the sum of 500 for appear
ance from day to day.
Daniel Titus VS. Manufacturing and
Investment Company. Action brought
to cover damages for alleged breach of
contract, wherein the plaintiff claims
that he was engaged to put into the
river large number of logs belonging
to the Manufacturing and Investment
Company at Madison for which he was
to be paid two cents per stick. That
after he had performed part of the
contract during the fall and winter, the
hardest time of the year to do such
work, he WAS dismissed by the company;
that he not only lost the profit which
wonld have accrued from completing
the contract but suffered loss on the
part he had performed during the hard
est part of the season. He claims dam.
ages in the sum of 81 900. The defend.
ant claims that the plaintiff agreed to
perform such part of the work AS the
defendant desired, and was to stop at