Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1901-10-15

| John +. Lord. Albany.
Albert C. McCrelis. Norway.
Reuben 8. Moulton, Hiram.
Chas +. Oiiham, Canton.
w. II. Packard, Hebron.
sL. w. Ripley. Andover.
John ID. Sands, Brownfield.
Winfield s. Starbird Paris.
Fred W. Warren, Buckfeld.
FIRST TRAVERSE JURY.
j. N. Bartlett. Stoneham. Foreman.
William ID. Bisbee, Norway.
Charles W. Row ker, Paris.
Seth Bracket. Sweden.
Isaac Davis. Fryeburg.
Charles s. Dudley. Paris.
Albert p. Fsrnham. Norway.
Julian n. Fsrrar. Grafton.
David T. Foster. Bethel.
s. A. Gatchell. Peru.
John r. Grover. DiXfield.
Asia F. Hay ford, Canton.
SECOND TRAVERSE JURY.
Joseph T. stearns. Lowell. Foreman.
Cyrus Il. Heald, Sumner.
Washing ton Head. Buckfeld.
Asa r. Kimball, Hiram.
Thomas B. Libby, Porter.
Harry NJ. Lombard. Upton.
s. l.. Moody. Rumf0rd.
Isaac s. Morrill, Bethel.
Il. VI. Pratt, oxford.
Stillman A. Reed, Mexico.
George W. Richardson. Greenwood.
George n. Stevens. Waterford.
sUPERSUMERARIEs.
James r. Stone, Brownfeld.
George L. Wentworth. Denmark.
Addison S. Young, Byron.
Jerry II. Martin of Rumford was e1-
cured from service on the traverse jury
on physicians certificate, he having
sustained an injury which prevented his
attendance.
This being a new grand jury, to serve
through the year, the members were in
structed as to their duties by Judge
Savage. His charge was concise, plain
and direct, and left little chance for mis-
of their duties on the part of
the jurors.
There were about thirty-five lawyers
present at the opening of court, and the
gathering seemed rather surprising to
gentleman, not q frequenter of the
courts, who asked OF the Democrat, with
a wave of his hand toward those within
the bar, "These are not all lawyers, are
they?" Besides most of the Oxford
County lawyers, number of visitors
from other counties were present at the
opening or at some time since, including
Hon. E. l.. Poor of Sebago, Walter p.
Perkins of Cornish, Frank Pulsifer and
II. p. Carver of Auburn. Hon. j. NJ.
Libby of Mechanic Falls hardly seems
like an outsider, and Judge A. Fl. Walk
er and Z. c. Walker of Bridgton, though
they practice now in Cumberland County,
are Oxford Bears and rarely miss term
here.
The calling of the docket resulted in a
trial list of about the average length
twenty cases in all. When it came to
making assignments of the cases, the
usual difficulty was encountered in get
ting anything for the first week. In
this instance the difficulty was increased
by the fact that Judge Foster is counsel
in several of the cases assigned, and that
he is closely engaged trying cases in the
Supreme Court. At length
a trial list was made up, but the cases
assigned to the first week were
largely of the probably-won'tbe-tried
kind.
The traverse jurors were accordingly
excused from day to day, and the court
held two short sessions day and at
tended to such minor matters as might
come before it.
GOODBYE, SWANS NOTCH ROAD.
On the first day of the term the COM
mittee of reference on the SWANS Notch
road case filed their report. This COM
mittee consisted of Edward E. Hastings
of Fryeburg, Tascus Atwood of Auburn,
and Almon Young of Hiram. Their re-
port sustains in full the action of the
county commissioners in disseminating
that portion of the SWANS Notch road
which lies in the towns of RumfOrd and
Roxbury.
The SWANS Notch road has had a
checkered and somewhat lengthy his
tory. 1t was designed especially to af-
ford the people of Andover shorter cut
to Rumford Falls, and it was not long
after the beginning of RumfOrd's de-
velopment that the proposed road first
made its appearance, the original petit
ton for location having been filed in
1892. As a portion of the road was in
the towns of Roxbury and Rumford, the
citizens of those towns, feeling that the
slight advantages which would accrue to
them were entirely dispropOrtionate to
the large expense of building and main
tanning it, opposed the location. An
dover was anxious to have the road
built, and the nine years. history Of the
road has been history of litigation and
contest. The details of the legal
processes through which the road has
been kept in the air all this time would
not be interesting, but they have all
been based upon the original petition.
The report of this committee, filed Tues
day, disposes finally of that petition, as
far as the portion of the road located in
Rumford and Roxbury is concerned.
The portion in Andover is left located,
but is of course Of no use without the
other end. The chapter is thus closed,
and the only way in which any further
action can be taken is by a new petition.
Whether any such move will be made is
question. In the history Of the road
no board of county commissioners has
favored the location, the favorable re-
ports all having been made by reference
committees appointed by the court.
DEMERRIrT VS.. CHAPMAN.
The case of Charles o. Demerritt et
ais vs.. E. E. Chapman was taken up Fri
day morning. This was an action fol
breach of covenant, in connection with
the sale of Mr.. Chapman's farm in
Gilead, the amount in controversy being
the taxes on this farm for 1899. In May
of that year Mr.. Chapman sold the farm
to the plaintiffs for consideration Of
$4,5OO, giving a warrantee deed. Charles
II. Demerritt, the father of the three
plaintiffs, did the negotiating with Mr.
Chapman, and occupies the place.
The question at issue was as to which
party was to pay the taxes for 1899, Mr.
Chapman asserting that it was part o
the verbal trade that the purchaser
should pay them. The Demerritts en-
tirely deny this, asserting that no sucl
talk was made. The taxes OF cours
constituted an incumbrance on the farm
and were finally paid by one Of the De
merritts, to prevent sale, and this sui
was brought to recover. The case occu
pied only two or three hours, but tn
testimony was decidedly contradictory
H. II. Hastings for plaintiffs; Wrigh
for defendant.
| This case was given to the jury at
L l. E.:Jo- Ahn,f O,clOCk the lnr