Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1900-05-25
Daily kennebec Journal.
AUGUSTA LOCALS.
THE LAW COURT.
y..ierday a Busy Day-Iudses Go into Private
Consultation. Today.

ais. US. allItu W. Aliiiot' q 49,
legged trespass. On the death of w. Nj.
Bruce, the present plaintiffs became
heirs to his property and from the
time of his death to the date OF the al
legged trespass, the heirs were IN pos
session. VIM. Bruce mortgaged the
homestead at Bath, and part OF the
farm to VIM. Hogan, in 1879. The next
wear. Hogan assigned the mortgage to
Alfred Lemont In 81, VIM. Bruce
mortgaged premises covered by Hogan
mortgage to Alfred Lemont. Alfred
Lemont began foreclosure on the Ho-
gan mortgage in 1883, and there was no
payment of mortgages. Alfred Lemont,
now dead. left all interest in the prop
erty to his daughter, Arameda S. Tar
box. Alfred Minot, as agent of Ara
media Tarbox. is alleged to have en-
croached on the land of the plaintiffs
and hence the suit. The case is or
dered back by consent. C. w. LARA
bee appeared for the plaintiffs; ]. NJ.
Trott for the defendant
The next case was a Kennebec con-
test. w. S. Henry Jr., ct al. VS.. David
Dennis and w. S. Henry, Jr., ct al. VS..
the same. l.. c. Cornish for the PLAIN
tiff: A. NJ. Spear for the defendant.
1t is a case to recover damages for
false and fraudulent representations
of the defendant while acting for the
Gardiner Wooden Co. One writ is in
favor of w. s. Henry, Jr., doing bust
ness as w s Henry, Jr., & Co. VS..
David Dennis on an account of $161S %
with interest; the other in favor of w.
s. Henry, Jr., & Chas. S. Parsons VS..
81 rs and interest.
Mr.. Spear said that Henry had a
separate business with which Parsons
was not connected. also another in the
same line in partnership with Parsons.
All business in the first was
transacted under the firm name W. 5.
Henry, Jr, & Co, in the other the
names of both partners appeared, and
II was a fact that Dennis knew nothing
about the two firms, being unaware
that there was any connection between
the firm w. S. Henry, Jr., IL Co. and
Henry & Parsons as a firm. The de-
Tense contended that the representation
of one partner of a firm does not bind
the firm and the written representa-
ton to one member of a firm does not
necessarily include all the members.
Mr.. Cornish stated that at the time
the tTaTulneT w OOlen w. Was III u
shedding. it's credit being poor. Mr..
Henry shipped small lot of wool to
the Gardiner Co. and in few days
another order came for more TO
learn the financial condition of the
company, Mr.. Henry wrote a letter to
ascertain its financial standing. and
signed the letter w. s. Henry & Co.
Henry was in company with Parsons at
this time but had some wool of his own.
Mr.. Dennis wrote from Gardiner, say
ing that any bill would be paid. The
plaintiff asserts this to be a misrepre-
sentation. false and fraudulent, and
Dennis must be held responsible. The
defense claimed that Dennis wanted
Mr.. Henrys individual wool not that
of the partnership. Mr.. Cornish as
serted that Dennis letter showed that
he thought he was writing to a firm
not an individual.
The Readfield Telephone & Telegraph
Co. VS. Frank r. Cyr ct al. then came
up. L. c. Cornish for plaintiff; w. c.
Eaton, defendant. The Dirigo Tele-
phone Co. running from Mt. Vernon
to Chambers Mills in Belgrade. was
sold Now '9S, as personal property, at
A'N'AA'
Readfield. or, the Readfield Tel. & Tel.
Co. The new owners proceeded to
string another wire in October, SO, and
the Drgo Company objected to this,
claiming that they still held full right
and title to poles, wires and insulators.
The wires were strung and about 4
Of a mile was torn down. This was
done by the defendants acting as
agents for the Dirigo Company.
Mr.. Cornish offered arguments to
prove the line to be personal property
and said that the case hung on that
point. whether it is personal or real
estate. Property may be termed as
real estate for tax purposes which
under common law is personal prop
erty The case was not completed as
Mr.. Eaton's argument was not pre-
pared. The argument is to be ready in
10 days.
In the case of Seth L. Larrabec ct
al, admrs VS.. c. II. Southland: exccp-
tons sustained by consent.
In the case Of the Readfield Telc-
graph 81 Telephone Co., VS.. Maurice
Crosby. l.. G. Cornish appeared for the
plaintiff: Joseph Williamson. Jr., for
the defendant. The plaintiff complains
that Maurice Crosby is maintaining a
public telephone in territory where the
plaintiff has exclusive right. and wants
the line removed from Readfield to
Wayne. Mr.. Cornish. attorney for the
plaintiff. said that the defendant is a
private individual: the plaintiff a cor
poration under the general law. The
defendant began with a private line,
has now about 20 subscribers and has
built the line from Readfield to Read
neld Corner and to North Wayne. The
line has never been Incorporated. and
the laws of Incorporation should be
applied to both plaintiff and defendant.
Mr.. Williamson objected to the al
lesatlon that the defendant is main
tanning line in opposition to law. The
headfleld company will not put in tele-
phohes and people do not want to run
"p 10 the central office, therefore
Wheh Mr. Maurices line was started
nc easily found patrons Maurice
rospy is an individual not a corpora
uoh' said the attorney. He also said
''idt II is every mans right to acquire
property and the Legislature had no
r,sht 10 say that Maurice Crosby
h. II.