The Somerset reporter., 1899-10-05
Somerset =. j. Court.
SEPTEMBER TERM, 1888.
FosLEB, j., Presiding.
N w RpAtgpRD CIeFl

GEORGE II. COLLINS, steuograp her. i
F. P. PRNNRLL. Sheriff
CHESTER II. MILE Messenger.
DEPuTIEs:-wm. F. Mutt. Fairfield; +. L.
Harding. Madison; s. W. Herrick Harmony;
| G. Is. Haskell, Pltsheld; +. =. Parsons, No
Arson; r. s. williams. Hartland Hiram N
Waugh, Starksi Charles f. Ham. Bingham :.
:. Walker North New Portland Cornelius A.
| Merrill Scion; Calvin II. Jones' Athens; b. +.
Jones, 80. Norridgewock. W. Guy Pennel1
| SkowhePan.
Thursday the jury in the case Good
win vs Miller returned a verdict for the
defendant and on Saturday morning
| Forrest Goodwin, Esq, counsel for the
plaintiff filed motion for new trial
and the case will 60 to the law court.
| Thursday afternoon the case of
| Frank c. Hanson VS.. w. b. Brown WAS
begun This was an action of replevin
to recover possession of horse. In
| this case in which Brown atty appears
as nominal defendent, it appeared
that tile horse in question, together
with other personal property, was in
Guided IA mortgage given to one W.
II. Draper of Providence, K. L., to Sc
cure a loan of $50, the mortgage being
recorded in the register of deeds Office
in that city. Subsequent 10 giving the
mortgage the mortgagor left Providence
and was finally located in Neaze,
Maine. Draper found the horse in
controversy, in possession of said mort
gagor, Geo. f. Hill and consented to
his remaining in his hands for "a certain
time. Subsequent to this the horse was
sold by mortgagor to Frank Hanson of
st. Adams, as the latter claims for
bona tide consideration. The property
was demanded of Hanson by Brown,
atty, for mortgage; his reply being as
Brown testified "come and take him
any time" Hanson stated in his testi-
mony that he replied to the demand
that Brown could come and take the
horse if he had a better title than he.
d The horse was thereafter taken from
Hansons stable by Brown in the form
er's absence, and Hanson brought re
plevin suit for recovery Stewart, coun
sci for plaintiff, contended that the
mortgage was void, as against bona
tide purchaser, because not recorded
in the TOW in Maine where the proper
" was found to be and allowed to re
main, and that it was inadmlssible in
evidence because the subscribing wit
ness to the instrument was not present
in court The jury found for the
plaintiff. d. ID. -tewart for plaintiff,
W. b. Brown foI defendant
Friday afternoon, case Daniel Huff vs..
Ellsworth Leavitt was entered upon.
The plaintiff had purchased farm of
defendant and suit was brought To re-
cover compensation for the storage of
certain articles of personal property
alleged in writ. The diff. claimed that
the articles were left in The premises
with the consent of the purchaser and
that they took up no space which WAS
of value; verdict WAS rendered for the
diff. l.. b. WAldron for plf., Z. n.
Merrill for diff
In the case of Leavtt VS.. Huff, the
same parties as in the former suit, and
the same counsel, the diff. had purchas-
ed farm in 1897 of plf. for $3.50, pay
ing $500 down and giving notes and
mortgage for balance of purchase price.
In the year following an agreement
was made between the parties for the
re- conveyance of the farm to Leavitt
the latter paying the diff. $50 as con-
sideration of the re-conveyance. The
plf. alleged that this agreement includ
ed a certain lot of pulp wood which the
diff. had cut upon the farm. This be
ing denied by the diff, replevin suit is
brought to recover possession of said
lot of pulp wood. The jury found for
the plf.
Monday the case, John II. Bryant,
VS.. Manufacturing Investment Company
of Madison, was taken up. The plf.
was in the employ of the diff. company
in their pulp mill, running circular
saw, saving the lumber into blocks for
the digester. While SO engaged the
plf was cut in the cheek by fragment
flying from the saw, and it is alleged
that the injury is of painful and per-
manent character, and that it was due
To negligence on the part of the diff.
company in not furnishing sufficient
lights, and in refusing to furnish same
when demanded. These allegations
were denied by the defendant corpora.
ton. The case was given to the jury
Tuesday forenoon and a verdict was
returned for the defendant, Z. n.
Merrill for the plf. Walton d Walton
for the diff.
The case Selden F. Greene VS.. Ben
S. Collins was tried Tuesday This
case was entered at the September term
1893, an action to recover for hay cut on
} ii farm belonging to plaintiff and occu-
pied by Jacob II. Atwood. Atwood
. claimed that portion of the hay cut on
the farm belonged to him and he let
the defendant have it to pay certain
executions. The plaintiff claimed
that the hay all belonged to him. Yer
diet for the plaintiff for $3.50. T. j.
Young for plaintiff, A, Simmons for
defendent.
Amy c. Crossman was granted a di
vOrce from Nelson j. Crossman for
desertion.
Annie A. Brooks VS. Llewellyn Morrill,,
W. b. Brown of Hartland, for plaintiff,
Brown and Brown of Watervlle, for
defendant. This is a case with history
1t was first entered in court at the
December term of 1897. 1t was tried
the March term of 1898 before drawn
jury, the result being verdict for the
plaintiff of 1854 10. Ii was taken to
the law court on exceptions and new
trial was granted. 1t was tried at the
March term, 1899, before a drawn jury,
the result being disagreement, and it
now comes up for the third trial. We
are not aware of any new features in the
case. The action was originally and is
now brought to recover for personal
damages TO plaintiff alleged to have
been caused by the falling of a tree
claimed to be on the premises of the
defendant in IIartland The defendant
claims the tree was not on his premises
and that he was guilty of no negligence
in caring for it. The trial began We'd
nesday morning and is now in progress.
| Liquor eases have been disposed of -
follows: II. l.. Williams, nuisance, 5000