Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-12-14
Cumberland and kennebec
County Gases Argued.
Mosher vs.. Prescott, the Famous
Augusta Horse Case Heard.
DISPOSITION Of the casss...hany
cuntinuauees...knox Co. Today.


Clyde Development Co., was the first
case to come before the full bench yes
terday morning and the only one on the
Cumberland county docket to be ar
gued. ]. w. Bradbury of Saco. attorney
for the plaintiff, was unable to be pres
ent owing to illness in his family. AT
tarney Joseph Z. Moore OF Rockland,
representing creditors Of the corpora
ton, was present. presented his arsu-
ments ard filed his brief. BY order of
the court Attorney Bradbury is Above!
an extension of 10 days in which to do
the same.
As presented to the court by the at
torney for the creditors. the Develop
ment Co. is 4 corporation organized UNI
der the general law OF the state.
Moody is the principal factor in the
company. The sum Of $4,000 was bor-
rowed Of the Georges Bank in the town
o: st. George, by the company to car
ry on it's business. Subsequently n
mortgage Of $25O0 was procured on the
property Large salaries We're voted the
officers. in fact. one officer filed
claim against the corporation for $4,000
or $1,000 more than the company ever
had for working capital.
Archibald. who brought suit. Moody
didn't appear. judgment was obtained
and sale of the premises ordered. The
petitioner claimed that this was n
friendly arrangement and was in effect
n voluntary bankruptcy proceeding.
The Hancock county case Of Har-
wood ct ais, vs. Chase. ct ais, came
up. Attorney J. Hugh Montgomery of
Camden asking for continuance to
the Bangor term Of the law court.
Judge F.. r.. Chase of Bluehill. the de-
PENDANT. argued against the further
delay. but the court finally granted the
request Of the attorney for the plain
tiffs.
The only Kennebec county case to
be argued this term is that Of Mosher
VS.. Prescott. coming before the full
bench on a motion to set aside the YER
dict Of $105.84 for the plaintiff on the
grounds that the verdict was against
the evidence and that the damages
assessed are excessive. A. NJ. Goddard
OF Augusta appears for the plaintiff and
c. l.. Andrews OF the law firm of
Heath E. Andrews, also of Augusta, for
the defendant.
The parties in the action were Rax
ter c. Mosher, 4 well-known farmer
Of Augusta, and Wallace NJ. Prescott.
a well-known livery stable proprietor of
Augusta. The case was tried before
Judge q. C. Hall in the superior court
at the January term.
The case is one of the variety COM
monty known as "hoss case" and had
all the attributes necessary to make 1t
extremely interesting. Mr.. Mosher
bought a bay mare of Mr.. Prescott in
March of 1908. guaranteed sound. he
claims. in all particulars and especial
" as to her eyes. However the horse
went blind in about week after he
be came owner and he took action to re-
cover the purchase price. $50.
Mr.. Prescott claims that the horse
was sold 'sound so far as he knew.
with the exception of a wen on her
shoulder" He further claims that
there was no guarantee Of soundness
"as to the eyes,"
Attorney Andrews argued that the
preponderance of evidence and the evil
denoe most likely to be in accordance
with the fact was in favor Of the latter
claim.
The cases on the docket Of the vari-
Gus counties as they came before the
full bench yesterday were disposed of
as follows:
Cumberland-227, Fox. VS.. Crague.
continued tn Portland term: 20. Moody
in equity, -. Port Clyde Development
Co.. argued BY petittoner. defendant
to file brief in 10 AayS from Dec. IS;
233. Logue vs.. Grand Trunk Ry. Co...
discontinued: ~. Smith vs. Brewer.
continued to Portland term: 2::S. D0ov-
lit vs.. Dow, continued to Portland
term.
Franklln--4l5. Moore VS.. RidenOur.
continued to Portland term; 4l6. Phil
brick VS.. Kurdish. motion overru!ed
for want of prosecution.
Hancock-479. Nicholson VS.. Maine
Central r. r. Co.. continued; 100.
Snowman & Son vs. Green. argued:
Cunningham VS.. Trundy. motion over
ruled for want of prosecution: 49,.
HARDWOOD ct ais. in equity VS.. Chase
e: ais. continued final: 4S3. State VS..
SWEET. appellant. motion and excep-
tions ovcrrulcd for want of prosecu-
ton.
Kennetec-565. Mosller VS.. Prescott.
argued; 566. State VS.. Granger. excep-
tons overruled for want Of prosecution:
56'. State VS.. Lishness. exceptions
overruled for want OF prosecution; $50.
Farnham. T.. S., VS.. Leydecker & IT..
continued; $40, Farnhan, Chas. A., VS..
Leydecker, continued: 571. Geguore
VS.. Bourque ct ais. Aplts.. mo-
ton overruled for want Of
evidence; SIS. Harding. Whitman Co. in
Rep. VS.. Maine Central R. r. Co..
continued; SIG. Heron VS.. Weber &
Tr.. continued: 573. Leydecker vs..
Farnham & TT. continued: 54. Ley
decker vs.. Farnham, continued; SIS
Moore Spinning Co.. in Rep. vs.. Maine
Central r. r. Co.. continued
DO. Reed VS.. Richardson. Jr.. con.
tinued; 579. State VS.. Sturgis
exceptions overruled for want of pros.
ecution; $50. State VS.. Cyr, Aplt., dis.
missed as to this docket: 5S1. State
vs. Jones. Aplt.. dismissed as to thi.
docket; 81. Trask VS.. Hallowell Gran
lite Co., continued
knox-7l6. Hopkins. in equity vs.
Nlhs ely ais. motion overruled fo
want Of prosecution,
Oxford-S53. Oldham VS. Carver mn
ton overruled for want of nrosecutio,