Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1900-05-15
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
MAY TERN, 1900

Charles r whitman, Clerk.
\. II. Whitman, Stenogrspher.
John :. Harlow, County Attorney.
James K. Tucker, Sheriff.
H.. Hammond, Deputy as Crier.
Herrick G. Davis, Librarian.
W. A. Barruws, Messenger.
srEARNs vs.. LIBBY.
The only case given 10 the jury dur
ing the term WAS that OF Eli +. Stearus
Of Bethel vs. the j. |. Libby Co. of Port
land. This was sn action brought to
recover balance claimed 20 be due for
2lS barrels Of apples sold hv Stesrns 70
the Libby Co. in the fall OF 1898. Stesrns
had quantity % apples stored In the
Puriugton cellar at Bethel, which were
bought by an agent Of the Libby Co,
the price paid being 81 go right
through" and IS the plaintiff says he
understood Il, without shrinkSge." The
Libby Co.'S men sorted and packed the
apples, but claimed that the apples were
not As represented by Mr.. Stearns-thst
the proportion OF the best keeping vsri-
cites was much less than he stated, and
that the quality Of the apples was poor,
80 that there were good many waste
apples, snd more No. 2's than he repre-
sented. Two hundred and nineteen bar
rel. were shipped TO the Libby Co. at
Portland, but they, as they say, would
only accept them on sale, and made re-
turn 20 Mr.. SteSrns, together with q
check for the balance recsoned 20 be due
him. He had had four hundred dollars
previous 20 the final settlement, and the
check sent him was for forty-six dollars
and some cents Ia addition. This check
he returned, and proposed 70 hold the
defendant company 10 the original trade
OF 50 60 per barrel right through.
There WAS considerable controversy
over the question whether the purchase
OF the apples at fixed price right
through" meant that the Libby Co.
should take all the apples "a they stood
In the cellar, or whether IL meant mar
ketable spples, what are commonly
known as No. and No. 2. The defend
ant claimed the latter as the correct uu-
derstanding of the trade, while the
plsintiff asserts that the trade was Tor
the lot rs they stood, without shrink
age: and as tending TO show that the
purchaser so understood the trade st the
time. the fact was introduced in evidence
that the packers sold quite quantity oil
the waste apples, which they had GO
right 10 do IL they had not bought them.
There was quite a mass OF somewhat
confused and more or less con h'ctine
testimony regarding the negotiations
between the parties. The jury returned
a verdict for nearly the full amount
claimed, s24l.43.
A motion for 4 new trial has been filed
and the case will go 70 the law court
Foster & Hersev for plaintiff; w. X. q
A. E. Neal OF Portland, and Wright fol
defendant.
The trial OF the above case occupied
the time Of the court until the middle o.
Tuesday afternoon. A few divorces anc
other matters were heard by the court
during the remainder OF thst day sno
Wednesday morning, and after the Judge
FRYE memorial exercises, elsewhere re
ported. the court finally adjourned De
fore noon Of Wednesday.
i Fifteen divorces were decreed during
the term. Those not reported last weel
are:
Olivia NJ. WEIGH, nbelant. vs.. Thomas II
WEIGH. Cruel and abusive treatment ana noi
support.
Swasey.
Angie B. Green. ubelAnt. vs.. John W. Greer
Cruel and abusive treatment
Wright.
Vivian y. Cameron, hbelant. vs.. Harry !
Cameron Adultery. Custody Of minor chii
given % the mother.
Gen. Mattocks.
John W. willis, nbelant. vs.. Mary Y. Win
| Desertion.
, Wright. kimosii q son.
Anna NJ Marston, nbelAnt, We. Ora n. Mar
ton. Cruel and abusive treatment.
Wright
The Willis divorce case. which was
have been contested, went through will
, out opposition, an adjustment OF the
, financial matters having been reached
Although the term was only e'gf
, DAYS In length, and only one case WI
) given TO the jury, it was decidedly
> business term, and large amount /!
matter was cleaned up and got of Il
docket.