Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1906-10-16

? Harry E Walker. Brownfeh.
Herbert L. Whitcomb. Waterford.
FIRST JURY.
Nathaniel F. Brown, Bethel, Foreman.
81 EnOch Abbott, Upton.
ri Levi N. Bartlett, Bethel.
Albert Bennett. Gilead.
. Fred L. Berry, Paris.
D Walter G. Conant. Hebron.
J, Elmer K. Demeritt, Peru.
Carl c. Dudley, Woodstock.
Matthew H. Elliott, Andover.
Joseph r. Farnham, Lowell.
A. B. Frost, Newry.
Lewis L. Glover, Rumford.
SECOND JURY.
William P. Hayford, Canton, Foreman.
Melvin Holman, Dixfeld.
George W. Holmes. Norway.
John r. Howe. Rumf0rd.
Fred II. johnson, Waterford.
Wilbur +. Libby. Sweden.
W. L. Libby. Paris.
Albert w. Quint, BrOwnfeld.
Herbert Ring. Greenwood.
Henry G Shaw, Buckfeld.
Edward A. ThOms. Denmark.
Charles w. Walker, Canton.
SUPPLEMENTARY.
John II Weeks, Porter.
Charles II. Adams of Norway and
Daniel S. Richmond of Oxford, drawn as
traverse Jurors, were excused, for bust
ness reasons.
Following the organization the docket
was called, and it at once appeared thai
quite quantity of business was to be
transacted at this term. AS first made
up, the trial list contained over fifty
cases, or more than double the usual
length, although as usual many of these
cases were not for actual trial.
Promptly upon the completion of the
work of assigning the cases for trial, the
actual work of trials was begun, case
assigned to this day at the preceding
term being ready.
| ELLIOTT VS.. RICHARDS.
This was the case of Harris l.. Elliott
appellant, vs.. AlonzO Richards. Elliott
the plaintiff, is in the insurance and real
estate business at Rumford Falls. The
suit is brought to recover commission
claimed BY Elliott on the sale of house
for Richards in Mexico. Elliott's con
tention was that he was engaged by
Richards to find purchaser for the
house at his usual terms, that he adver
tised it and afterward had converse
tion with the subsequent purchaser
which led up to the sale. The defence
was that Elliott's services were not the
efficient cause of the sale, which was
effected outside his agency. The case
was short, being opened we'll into the
afternoon of Tuesday, and at half-pasl
five the jury returned verdict for the
plaintiff of $54.32. The case will 90 to
the law court on motion for new trial
Stevenson for plaintiff; Gleason 8
Blanchard for defendant.
| FURNISH vs.. HOWARD.
The action, Frederick A. Fnrbush VS.
Bert I. Howard, appellant, was replevir
suit to recover possession OF heifer
and grew out Of horse trade. The
parties live in Mexico. One day last
December Furbush bought a horse OF
Howard, the price being fixed at twenty
five dollars, and the purchase price was
made up by heifer which Furbush lei
Howard have, reckoned at fifteen dollars
and note for ten dollars. After keep
ing the horse few days, Furbush found
according to his story, that the animal
was practically worthless, and he return
ed the horse to Howard, who refused to
take him, whereupon Furbush turned
the horse loose in Towards yard. Fur
bush then replevied his heifer.
The pith of this case was in the repre-
sensations made regarding the horse al
the time of the trade, and the testimony
was rather contradictory. Furbush's
testimony is that Howard told him the
horse was sound and all right, and moi
over twelve or fourteen years old. The
testimony of Howard is that he told
Furbush the horse might be twelve
years old, might be fourteen, and might
be more. He didn't know how old the
horse was, and he guessed there wasn't
nobody that knew. he also says he told
Furbush that the horse was chest found
cred.
About half day was occupied by THU
trial on Wednesday, and the jury return
ed verdict of one cent for the plaintiff
thus giving him possession of the heifer
Swasey for plaintiff; Gleason 4
Blanchard for defendant.
RUMFoRD NATIONAL BANK VS.. JOSEPH
EFT AL.
The next case was that of the Rumfort
National Bank vs.. Ahmad Joseph ct al
appellants. The defendants, Ahmat
Joseph and his brother, are Syrian
merchants doing business at Rumforc
Falls, and their testimony. while not al
ways clear to American ears, was pictur
esque. The case grew out of trans
action in which the Joseph brother,
honored draft for 1882 at the Rum
ford National Bank, in order to secure 8
shipment of goods which was at thu
freight depot. For this purpose they
went to the bank together, and the bust
ness was attended to by l.. B. Lane, who
was at that time cashier of the bank. HI
also read to the defendants letter from
the wholesale house regarding the goods
as they were unable to read, and severa
minutes was occupied with the business
Immediately after they left the bank Mr.
Lane, recounting the money, found i
fifty dollars short. He telephoned t.
the station and stopped the delivery o.
the consignment, and the brothers came
back to the bank, but protested tha
they had paid the full amount. Thil
suit was brought to recover the fifty
dollars balance.
Mr.. Lane explains the error as due Il
the .piecemeal way in which they paid tn,
amount of the draft, they paying $3.50. on
at first, which he laid in three piles, ant
then by mistake reckoned it as $300.0'
when at later stage of the business the!
produced the rest of the money. TIL,
Joseph brothers, on the other hand, tel
very circumstantial account of the wa!
they got the money together to pay thi
draft, their figures showing that they hat
paid out just the amount Of the draft.
Verdict for defendants.
Gleason & Blanchard for plaintiff
Swasey for defendants.
AMEs vs.. MANN.
The case of Herbert L. Ames, appel
liant, VS.. William Mann, was also from
Mexico, and was likewise q horse trad
case. 1t was very short, the only wit
nesses being the two parties TO the suit
It seems that on certain day, alop{
about noon, the parties, after some pre-
vious dickering, snapped horses even
A few hours later In the same day, Mani
came around and wanted to trade back
: and It appeared that the horse he hal
: traded really belonged to his brother
: though he had certain authority to trad
him. He was very anxious to trade
back, and finally agreed to pay Anne
twenty five dollars. He had ten dollar
with him, which he paid, and this sui
. was brought to recover the other fiftee
) dollars, which he has never paid.
The defence was that on the first trad
Ames warranted his horse to be % goo,
as Mann's, but that the animal was real
/ ~ unsound, having the heaves, . bo