Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1904-12-08
COURT,
More Of the Hoyes, Admir-,
VS.. Rich Suits.
The First Case Non-Suited and
Case No. Two Opened.
This Involves Two Notes, for $4,000 and
$4,000.


The session of the Supreme judicial
court was resumed before Justice
Whitehouse at $50 o'clock, yesterday
morning. The proceedings of the day
were complicated. for the cases in
volved prOmissory notes, etc, bring
ing forth many intricate and interest
ing points of law. AS one prominent
| attorney expressed his idea of the pro.
ceilings, 1.-The Kennebec county law
school was in session.
The first case. known on the docket
as No. 50, Alvah D. Hayes Admir-. of
the estate Of Dingley Bros. of Gardi-
ner against Abraham Rich of Farm
ingdale, was non-suited after a discus
sion of nearly 30 minutes between the
| counsel. Heselton and Heath & An
drews appeared for the plaintiff, and
the law firm of Williamson & Bur
leigh for the defendant. The plaintiff
in this action had secured judgment
against Abraham Rich of Gardiner
This judgment was assigned, for a
valuable consideration to Albert A.
Robbins, also of Gardiner, and has
| never been paid. Attorney G. w.
Heselton in his opening argument re-
viewed the various transactions lead
| ing 10 the judgment, clearly explaining
the somewhat complicated mercantile
| proceedings. The first witness for the
| defence was Clerk of Courts Jones,
who read extracts from the court rec
ords in regard to the serving of writs,
etc, in the case. Attorney William
son objected to the introduction of the
records Of the serving of writs until
satisfied tina: they were executed by a
duly sworn deputy sheriff. He was SO
ed as evidence.
/ Alvah r. Hayes OF Gardiner, who
had been appointed administrator OF
the estate. appeared as plaintiff in the
case. Witness knew Albert A. Rob
bins in whose favor the judgment had
been made, and who had died in 1901. On
being shown a note marked "plaintiff s
exhibit No. L. witness testified to see
\ ing the same signed and endorsed. The
defence objected to the Introduction OF
this execution, and the case was
dropped upon application for non suit
by Attorney Williamson.
The next case to come before the
Lourt was one with the same parties as
in the foregoing. The same parties
acting as plaintiff and defendants and
the same attorneys appearing.
Fl. r. Haynes. administrator for the
estate of j. B. Dingley of the firm OF
Dingley Bros doing business in Gardi-
ner brought suit against Abraham
Rich on the first count for $4,000 and in
he second for $4,000. In opening. At
orney Heseiton reviewed the situation
at length. It's purport was that tn,
plaintiff had received from time tt
time promi5sory notes of the de-
PENDANT, at varying periods of time
and amounts, and these the plaintifi
claimed has never been pair TEE
notes were given: Jan. 81, 1888, slooo
at 30 ds.: Feb. %, 1885. $1,000, 30 ds.'
Dec. =, 1894, $500 at mos; Jan. ., 1873
$500 at mos: Aug. l, 1896, $50 at
mos; Nov. 4. 1896 s121S.33; Nov. "A
1896, $500; Nov. 80, 1896. $500; Feb. H.
1896. S7229S; and Jan. IA, 1897, $l5o be
sides these various notes the plantlii
claims various sums of money pald as
| renewal on these notes. figuring IN the
neighborhOOd of $1,000. These NOTES
| were renewed on maturity, instead o.
being ra;d, and We're practically uhse-
erred as the mortgage held by the
nlaintiffs on the property OF defenoah.
was at full value, and would allow OF
mn ,io,1idation in the way or more
notes In introducing the case to the
inv the various notes were rep to the
court and later were filed IS oocu
n,entary evidence. The summing Oh
Tho nresentat ton of the case was tnat
tho n,aintiff had received unsecured
49, of tho defendant at various times
and had never been pald. ACTION oeii7
brought to recover on the sah,e
In presenting the defence At'olney
Williamson repudiated the aIsu ine.s.
Of the plaintiff. claiming that tne ho.es
had been secured by notes on the ~
house owned by MT. hic"' -
property was later sold, the piain'nl
having thus secured ample recompehs >,
for the money loaned. had secureo an
their inst due The mortgage on LII,
norperty was given Dec IL. $780, anu
was TO provide the plaintln asa,n.'
anv loss for any moneys ao'aneeu ~
W. Ricb for the furthering OF ms
business interests. At the concius'o',
of the opening the defendant couiae'
introduced numerous letters slgneu w
A.. pich and in connection with tne
,.ar;o,,s transactions referred to IN tne
,'a,,;ng of Attorney Heselton. Inc
,r.nod,c,ior of this documentary EVIL
dence completed the morning sess'''' VI
the court. Of DE
The hearing was resumed at 81
o'clock. and owing to the non-araiva
If several of the witnesses, proceeo'ass
wore somewhat deferred. When Inv
wheels oe the law were again IN mo
ton A. G. Stilphen of Farmingdale was
called upon to testify. Witness has oeen =,
nracticing attorney in the Guy o.
Gardiner since 1869. During which time