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

Mann was not bound by his promise to
pay the twenty five dollars, because 1t
was practically extorted from him by
the breach of warranty by Ames In the
first trade.
Verdict for plaintiff, $16.4s.
Foster and Swasey for plaintiff;
Stevenson for defendant.
NEwcOMB VS.. ANDREWS.
/ The case of George W. Newcomb vs..
Bernard Andrews was tried Thursday.
The suit was brought to recover dam.
ages for alleged misrepresentation by
Andrews regarding the bounds Of his
farm in the town of Canton. In the
spring of 1904 Newcomb, who lives in
Bridgton and is q lumberman, bought of
Andrews the standing lumber of certain
varieties on his farm In Canton, and the
next winter put up q portable mill and
cut and sawed the lumber. According
to Newcomb's statement, he afterward
found that two parcels of land which
were within the lines shown him by
Andrews as those of his farm, were in
reality owned by other people. One
square lot OF four acres near the north
line belonged to Madison Ludden, and
on the east side of the farm piece next
the brook was found to belong to Mr..
Bradbury, who owned the land on the
other side of the brook, though An
drews had shown him the brook as the
line. Both these pieces contained a
quantity of lumber, and in order to OBJ
tain it he had to buy it of the other par
ties, and this suit was brought to re-
cover the damage on the ground of mis-
representation.
The gist of the case was really in the
conversations had by the parties pre-
vious to the sale of the lumber. Mr..
Andrews contention is that he did not
show Mr.. Newcomb a definite line on
the east side of the farm, but told him
he did not know just where the line was,
and pointed it out as nearly as he could.
In regard to the other piece, Andrews
asserts that he told Newcomb in the
first place that 1t belonged to Ludden,
and the testimony of other witnesses
was introduced to show that Newcomb
subsequently admitted this. The testi-
mony of the parties regarding the state
ments made as to the boundaries during
the negotiations were considerably at
variance.
This case went to the jury shortly |
before noon Friday, and little after 8
o'clock they returned a verdict for the |
plaintiff of 800.
Swasey for plaintiff; Wright &
Wheeler for defendant.
Another action between the same par |
ties was to recover damages for certain
of the lumber cut on the farm by New
comb and detained by Andrews, who
refused to allow NewcOmb to haul 1t
across the farm by the route which he
desired, and stood guard with shot gun
to prevent his doing SO. This was heard
by Judge Wiswell without jury, and he
ruled in favor of the defendant. Excep-
tions were taken, and the case goes to
the law court.
The case of o. II. Pingree vs.. Bernard
Andrews was referred to Adelbert DelanO
and George Childs, to fix the amount OF
damages.
DAVIS VS.. DAMON.
. Martha J. Davis va. Mosely j. Damon.
This was an action brought to recover
for the plaintiffs services as house
keeper from Feb. 4, 1908, to March II,
1905. Mrs. Davis, the plaintiff, is now
resident of Mercer, Mr.. Damon, the
defendant, lives in Buckfield. During
the time when the services were render
ed as alleged, which was before her mar
rage to her present husband, the plain
tiff was at Mr.. Damon's in Buckfield as
housekeeper, one young daughter being
with her all the time, and another part
of the time. She also assisted some
what about the outdoor work. The
dispute is as to under what terms and
conditions she was there. According to
the plaintiffs contention, the under
standing was that II she would 60 there
and stav while Mr.. Damon lived, she
should have what property he had, and
will to that effect should be made, or
papers made out which would secure it,
but nothing of the kind was ever done.
According to Mr.. Damon's statement OF
the matter, he simply offered her home
for herself and her children, without
any question of consideration for her
services, and she accepted on those
terms. Verdict for plaintiff, S147.50.
The case will 60 to the law court.
Dyer for plaintiff; Wright & Wheeler
for defendant.
This case went to the jury Saturday
morning, and the rest of the business
assigned for the first week having been
all disposed of, there was but little more
to do for the day. A few minor mat
ters were attended to, and at noon the
court adjourned to Monday morning.
The first weeks work was more in
amount than usual. Most of the time
things were moving very briskly, and
six verdicts were returned in the five
days, though none of them were cases OF
great importance.
THE GRAND JURY.
The grand jury were industriously at
work until Saturday, and shortly before
noon of that day made their report and
we're discharged for the term. The
number of indictments found is twenty
five. Those made public are as follows:
Henry L. Harrington of Hartford. Man.
Edward n. Hutchins of Auburn. Assault
with q dangerous weapon.
Vincent Nogness OF Rumford. Larceny OF
Der Bertha West and Claude W. schoppert of
Rumford. Adultery.
Charles B. standisl, alias Charles B. Stanley,
of Peru. Bigamy.
ness.
Desire Langevin, Roche Monchamp. Albert |
Plant and Henry Labelle, all Of Rumford.
Breaking and entering and larceny.
Irving 8. Thompson and Mary Thompson, OF
Woodstock. Nuisance.
Work on the criminal docket will be-
gin Monday morning, when the liquor
cases will be taken up.
The remaining civil cases assigned for
this week are as follows:
MONDAY