Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1906-10-23

Joseph Mitchell of Rumford Falls
who had pleaded not guilty to nuisance
Indictment, retracted his plea and plead
ed guilty, and the case was continued fol
Judgment.
Barney Fortier and Louis Fortier, In q
case appealed from the Rumf0rd Falls
Municipal Court, for illegal Transports
ton Of liquors, pleaded guilty and were
fined each $50 and Sl5 costs. Louis
Fortier, In another case of the same
kind, paid another fine Of $50 and costs
of $21.70.
Mike J. Michigan of Rumford was
given a sentence of two months In jail,
on q liquor nuisance indictment found at
the March term. Other cases will be al
lowed to hang over him.
Patrick Driscoll of Rumford, who was
indicted for liquor nuisance, pleaded not
guilty. There was some discussion by
counsel as to whether he should not be
allowed to plead guilty and have the
case continued, 80 that he could return
to the Kelley cure from which he had
been taken. Judge Wiswell emphatical-
~ disapproved of the Kelley cure plan,
and refused to take it into consideration
at all. After considering q while, Dris-
coll decided to plead guilty, and fine
of 500 and costs was imposed and paid.
PEARL VS.. DAVIS.
Wednesday morning work on the civil
docket was resumed with the trial OF two
cases, Alfred Pearl vs.. Charles c. Davis,
both appealed from trial justice court.
Pearl lives in Yarmouth, Davis is we'll
known business man of Oxford. The
two cases were tried together, as the
facts were somewhat related, although
they were entirely different in their
nature. One was an action to recover
balance of $40 claimed to be due on forty
days labor by the plaintiff for Davis in
numbering in January, February and
March, 1905. The other was trespass
suit to recover the value of certain cloth
ing and other articles left by Pearl at his
boarding place at the time he finished
work, and taken from there by Davis,
the value of them as named being $3.50.
According to PEARLS testimony, he went
to work for dollar day and his board,
and his account was made out on that
basis.
The defence was that Pearl was en-
gagged to work for his board and what
he could earn, that he did not work the
length of time he claims, that he was not
an efficient workman, and that the
amount already paid him was enough
for the services rendered. As regards
the clothing and other things taken, it is
commended that they were taken because
Mr.. Davis and his crew were about to
vacate the house where they were left,
so the things were simply taken for
safety, and Pearl was notified where
they were left.
Verdict in both cases for the plaintiff,
s1S.7 Is in the suit for wages, and 50 80 in
the trespass suit.
Hazen for plaintiff; Holt and swasey
for defendant.
HALL VS.. HALL.
The trial of Lizzie E. Hall vs.. Ella NJ.
Hall was begun Wednesday afternoon.
The parties live on adjoining places in
Oxford, and this suit is brought to re-
cover possession of piece of land
claimed by the plaintiff to be wrongfully
occupied by the defendant. The object
of the suit is to determine the line be-
tween the two parties, the piece of land
in dispute being about six acres in area,
situated on the east side of the Grand
Trunk Railway, between that and the
road, a short distance north of Oxford
station. For general interest this was
about as dull trial as could be. The
witnesses included surveyors who had
run lines there and other parties more or
less directly interested or not interested
at all, and the taking of testimony was
slow process of digging out informa-
ton regarding the poplar corner, the
Chadbourne corner, stumps, stone piles,
east lines and south lines, black lines
and red lines, old fences and walls, etc.,
etc. Like all line cases, it moved with
exceeding slowness, and required vast
amount of testimony.
Wright & Wheeler were attorneys for
plaintiff; Hazen, and Libby of Mechanic
Falls, for defendant.
This case was given to the jury after
six o'clock Thursday night, and after
being out only short time they sealed |
their verdict and separated. The next
morning they returned a verdict for the
plaintiff.
RAY VS.. BIsBEE.
Friday morning the trial of William II.
Ray VS.. Harry II. Bisbee was begun.
This case was tried at the last March
term, and resulted in disagreement of
the Jury. Wright & Wheeler and D. j.
McGillicuddy for plaintiff; Bisbee &
Parker for defendant.
This was an action for personal in
juries. Bisbee runs a saw mill in
Sweden, in which Ray, whose home is in
Waterford, and who is now % years of
age, was formerly employed. On the
9Th of June, 1905, while employed running
a cutting off saw in this mill, Ray met
with an accident by which his left hand
was mangled so that all the fingers and
portion of the palm had to be amputated,
leaving only the thumb and a portion of
the palm. As described by the witness
es, this saw was rugged 80 that the oper-
ator stands in front, and taking hold OF a
brake pulls the saw toward him to make
the cut, then lets go the brake and the
saw returns into the hood. The saw
frame was so hung that the weight of it
with nothing attached would carry the
saw out into the table. In order to re-
turn it to the hood rope was attached
to the brake, thence carried over a pull
ley, and at the end of the rope was an
iron weight. :
At the time of the accident Ray had
Just cut off the scarf end of log to
square 1t up, and the piece cut off had
dropped into the saw groove in the table.
Ray reached down with his left hand to
pick up this piece, when his hand came
in contact with the saw and was man
gled. 1t is the contention of the plaintiff
that the accident was caused by the
breaking of a wire by which the pulley
over which the rope ran was fastened to
one of the rafters Of the mill. The
breaking of this wire released the saw
frame, and allowed it to drop forward
of its own weight and bring the saw
against Rays hand. 1t is alleged that
the construction was dangerous, and the
wire too small and of insufficient
strength to hold the weight, and that it
was matter of negligence for which the
owner of the mill was liable to maintain
it in that shape.
Though there were other men In the
mill at the time, no one saw the acct
dent when it happened, but the broken
wire and the pulley were introduced in
evidence, together with certain state
ments made by Bisbee that the wire had
been up four years, and that the break
ing of it caused the accident.
The defence was that the construction