Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-12-14

cd in accordance with the contract. III
three respects: % Because the logs had
not been landed as provided by the CON
tract: 60 because the plaintiffs did not
cut all, Or substantially all. OF the trees
of sufficient size to be Suitable for this
manufacture of pulp standing on the
territory. or that portion of the terrific
ry where the cutting was done by the
plaintiffs. and tD that they did not cut
at all over a considerable portion of the
territory described in the contract: in
other words. that the operation was con-
fined to that portion OF the territory near
the stream where the logs Were to be
hauled and lanC"d. and did not extend
at all over a considerable portion of the
territory further back from the stream
me case was tried before a jury who re-
turned 4 verdict for the plaintiffs for the
fun amount claimed. and the case is
brought here upon the defendants motion
Tor new trial.
AS to the first two grounds of corten-
ton or the defendant 1T is sufficient 10
say that IN our opinion the verdict of
tle jury must be accepted as decisive OF
these controversies. So that it is only
necessary to consider the third ground
relied upon by the defendant, as abovf,
enumerated. 1t is not impossible that
there may have been Il misinterpretation
of this contract bv the plaintiffs. 1t was
not sufficient for them TO have cat nero
~ upon that portion OF the E'cina tional
lap.r COS. land near the southwest cor
nHr Of u" township. These words near
were anoptcd. no. for the purpose OF con
lining the plaintiffs numbering opera
lions to that portion of the township.
hut Tor the purpose Of describing in Il
general way the location of that land in
the township. The contract required the
plaintiffs to cut ALI tine merchantabIa
pine logs and all the spruce and fir suit
able for the manufacture of pulp. now
standing on that portion of said tract
that has been recently burned" The
tract was the land of the Paper Co. near
the southwest corner of the township
The contract is an entire one. The
plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the
balance of $50 per thousand feet until
they had substantially performed tn.
whole contract. A careful consideration
OF all the testimony irresistibly forces MS
to the conclusion that the plaintiffs did
not perform their whole contract. even
substantially. Whether from a misinter-
probation Of the contract or for some
other reason. they confined their cutting
almost entirely to the territory south and
east of Trout brook They c1It no iors
north Of the brook. and only a very few.
according - their own TESTIMONY. west Of
1t. To he sure They say now that there
was nothing standing upon that portion
of the land that had been burned nova,
and west of the brook that was s,,itahln
10 ne cut. eXccnt the very few trees west
OF the brook that We're cut. but VIC are
Safisfied that there was a considerablc
amount of standing trees on this terr:to.
~ that thev did not CIT over even nf M
SIZE That Should havc been cut oocordrp
70 the rlaintiffs' claim and tho irrv,c
nndlnc in that resnect. The action was
therefore. nrnmaturcIv brought an, 40,
rot be sustained at tho present time Of
inns we are clearly satisfied by the owl
d"nce that we feel constrained IN ca
;tShn" r." verdict Of the jury and order 4
Motion sustained
Now trial granted
Recc.ved Dec. - 1905;