Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1902-03-18

/ uc OiuCcIs CuOScu WcTcs
President-C. z. Holt
yice.President-I. s. Wright.
: Secretary-C. r. whitman.
Treasurer-George n. Atwood.
Librarian-Walter l.. Gray.
Library Committee-A. E. Herrick, James 8
Wright. Charles p. Barnes.
THE BAR BANQUET.
Thirty members of the bar, with sew
eral of the county officers as invited
guests, sat down to fine banquet al
Bea's Hotel, Norway, Tuesday evening
At the after-dinner exercises Hon
George D. Bisbee presided as toast.
master. Speeches were made by Judge
Peabody, who was the special guest Of
honor, Hon. A. S. Kimball, Hon. j. S.
Wright, Hon. John P. Swasey, Col. E. F.
Smith, Charles P. Barnes, A. j. Stearns,
Hon. A. E. Herrick, Hon. John S. Har-
low, Judge H. c. Davis and Judge &.
w. johnson. The affair was a most
satisfactory Inauguration of what will
probably become permanent feature.
A NUISANCE SUIT.
The first case of the term went on
trial Wednesday morning-William Graf
fam VS.. John Summers. 1t is an action
of damages for maintenance of nui-
sance. The plaintiff, GRAHAM, occupies
house at Rumford Falls, and on the
adjoining lots are two houses rented by
the defendant (who lives in POrtland)
one of which has been used as board
ing house. One privy has been used for
both the Summers houses, and this
privy, which was only about fifteen feet
/ -. L. -, Nf kl,<n ,-.f
| fam house, was the nuisance complained
of. A very unsavory condition of things
was testified to, and it was shown that
the board of health had several times
been called upon to abate the nuisance,
and had finally compelled its entire re-
mOval.
The case was conducted by Mr.. Parker
of Bisbee & Parker for the plaintiff, and
Mr.. Swasey for the defence. After the
plaintiff S case was in, Mr.. Swasey moved
a nonsuit, on the grounds that Mr..
Summers was not the owner of the
premises as alleged in the writ, but only
agent of the owner, it appearing that his
wife holds the title; that the creator of
the nuisance was not the owner but the
tenant; and that the plaintiff was guilty
of contributory negligence in making no
effort to protect his premises from the
overflow of the privy. The motion for
non-suit was argued at considerable
length on both sides, the attorneys quot
ing numerous authorities in support of
their respective positions. Judge Pea
body denied the motion. A settlement
of the case was then made by the parties,
and it was withdrawn from the jury.
SMALL VS.. THOMPSON.
Most of the day Thursday was occu-
pied by the trial of the case, Emily A.
Small VS.. James A. Thompson. This
was a suit for compensation for services
as housekeeper. Mrs. Small is the wife
of Orange F. Small, formerly of Paris.
In the fall of 1899, while Mr.. Small was
at Augusta for treatment, Mrs. Small
went to Mr.. Thompson's in Sumner, and
remained there during all except three
weeks of the time from November of
that year until October, 1900. Accord !,
ing to her representation of the matter,
she went there without any rate of COM
pensation being named, but with the ,
understanding and the promise that she
should have her pay. She had never re- ,
ceived any money, though she gave
credit in her account for some dress
goods and eggs received.
The position of the defence is that
Mrs. Small went to Mr.. Thompson's
with the understanding that she was to
work for her board; that during the
absence of her husband she was without
a home, and was glad to accept the
chance at those terms; and that the
services rendered were less than she
and such as to be worth no
more than she had received.
Verdict for plaintiff s56.Ol. A. S.
Kimball for plaintiff; Wright for defend
ant.
FOX VS.. GOULD.
A partial hearing was had Thursday
night in the case of Francis A. Fox VS.. !
Sherman l. Gould. Mr.. Fox is a Kezar !
Falls lawyer and Mr.. Gould Portland
lawyer, and each appeared for himself.
The suit is in the form Of writ of entry
to obtain possession of certain parcel
of land in South Hiram now held by
Sherman l. Gould and occupied by his
father. The title to this piece is claim
ed by Mr.. Fox on a sheriff's deed result
ing from an execution against Isaac S.
Gould, who formerly held the title. Mr..
Gould, however, had previously con-
veyed the land to another party, and a
bond for deed on the repayment of a
certain sum of money had been given to :
his son, Sherman 1. Gould, the defendant :
in this case. The condition of the bond
was finally satisfied, and deed of the
land given to Sherman I. Gould. Mr.. |
Fox's contention is that the transaction |
in which the bond for a deed figured |
was in effect mortgage, and that the |
satisfying of the condition of the bond !
was virtually discharge of the mort
gage. This suit was brought by an
order of court directing Mr.. Fox to
bring some form of action under the
statute to test his title. After the case
was fully stated, Judge Peabody ruled
that the writ of entry could not be main |
tanned, and directed Mr.. Fox to bring a
bill in equity instead.
CUMMINGS VS.. PROCTOR.
Friday was mainly occupied with the
trial of the action of c. B. Cummings &
Sons of Norway VS.. George A. Proctor
OF l0rk Beacn, TO recover Oalance
claimed on account of S52.66. A guam
tity of lumber amounting to about $3.50
was sold by the plaintiffs to the defend
ant in 1899, and the books of Cum
mings l. Sons show the balance due as
above named. The defence is that the
claim has been fully paid, and the case
hinges upon the correctness of receipt
produced by the defendant. This re-
ceipt, which was given at the time of
the first payment made by Mr.. Proctor,
was written out by Mr.. Proctor and
signed by George l. Cummings at Mr..
Proctor's house. This receipt, Mr..
Cummings asserts, was for one hundred
and five and 90-100 dollars, the amount
of two checks which were paid. The
receipt as it now stands is for one hun
dred and fifty-five and 9O-l00 dollars,
and the plaintiffs contention is that the
"fifty" has been inserted in the body of
the receipt since it was signed. Mr..