Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1907-06-04
Supreme judicial Court.

Supreme judicial Court.
MAY TERM, 1907, AT RUMFoRD FALLS.
Hon. Henry G. Peabody,
Justice Presiding.
Charles r. Whitman, Clerk.
], A. HAYDEN, Stenographer.
Charles P. Barnes, County Attorney.
Hiram R. Hubbard, Sheriff.
Henrv r. Hammond. Crier.
j. A. McMennamin, Messenger.
In the case of Leon LaPierre against
the town of Mexico, for damages from
the alleged flowing Of the defendants
land by the changing Of culvert, YER
dict was returned for the town. The
case will be appealed.
The next case was The Railway Pub
fishing Co. vs.. Weston N. Toothaker.
This was for set of books on railroad
ing, the price being $50 90 in install
ments. The defendant, who is an en-
gineer, signed contract for the work,
which was delivered. Being very busy,
he did not for time examine the work,
but when he did so, as he asserts, he
found that it was not up to date, and not
as was represented by the agent. BE
thereupon refused to pay, and the suit
was brought.
The contract which had been signed
was introduced in evidence, and showed
in fine type paragraph specifying that
no verbal representation should alter the
terms.
After quite lengthy consideration, the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for $4,000. The case will 60 to the law
court.
Henry E. Hale VS.. A. o. Tracy was
the next case tried. The plaintiff is
real estate agent at Rumford Falls, and
the suit was brought to recover 500
commission claimed on the sale OF
farm in Peru for the defendant. The
contention of the plaintiff was that he
negotiated the sale of the farm, but that
the defendant refused to sell, and the
purchaser bought another farm. The
defendant asserts that he was willing to
sell, and that he brought the deed of the
farm to Rumford Falls the day after the
sale, but that the intending purchaser
had negotiated for another place.
Verdict for plaintiff, $500.
Stearns for plaintiff; Bisbee & Parker
for defendant.
Susan II. Whitney vs.. Marshal s
Whitney was tried Monday afternoon
The action was brought to recover rents
and profits on farm in Byron. The
parties had been divorced on petition o.
the wife, and under the law she wal
entitled to certain rents and profits In
real estate owned by her husband at the
time of the divorce. After the plaintiff
evidence was in, defence moved a non
suit, on the ground that no demand hao
been made for the rents and profits, a.
required by law before suit could bt
maintained. The motion was granted
by Judge Peabody, and plaintiffs coun
sci filed exceptions.
Watson and Manser for plaintiff; Swa
sey for defendant.
Levi Garrett VS.. W. r. Clifford wa
tried Tuesday. This was a suit fol
damages alleged to have been caused
during a search of the premises of tn
plaintiff at Rumford Falls. The de
PENDANT, who was at that time a Sturgii
deputy, participated In the search, to
gether with Deputy Sheriff Gardner q
Cobb, who swore out the search warrant
and Sturgis Deputy Eben A. Poor. Two
bottles were found, one containing wint
and the other some other liquor. 1t i
the contention of the plaintiff that tn
defendant had no right on the premises
and that during the search the defendan
laid violent hands on the defendant
wife.
For the defence it is claimed tina
Messrs. Clifford and Poor were not actinl
officially as Sturgis deputies in tn
J search, but as aids to Deputy Sheriff
Cobb at his request; that no assault wa
committed upon the woman, but that tn
affair consisted wholly in repelling al
lack made by her.
Mccarthy for plaintiff; Bisbee 1
, Parker for defendant.
After the testimony was in, the cOur
ordered the jury to return a verdict TO
defendant.
J 1t had been planned to adjourn the
court finally on the afternoon of Wednes
day, May 30, but as the last case SO
down for trial was settled, adjournment
J was reached Wednesday morning in tim
: for most of the attendants to catch tn
forenoon train. The court was in ses
sion fourteen days, and while the mum
Der of trials was not large, consider
able amount of business, including SOM
, important cases, was disposed of.
The following divorces were grantet
during the term:
Annie NJ Wilson VS.. Warren Wilson. De
J sertion. Gu tody Of minor children TO mother
. II. II. Hastings.
Minnie b. Laing VS.. Frank NJ. Laing Cruelty
Custody of minor child to the mother.
Gleason & Blanchard.
Ida NJ. Reed VS.. Charles +. Reed. Habits o
intoxicati0n. Custdy Of minor child to lbelant
Herrick Park.
Cora e. Wood va. Harry Wood. Desertion
Custody OF minor children to libelant.
Barnes.
Margaret T.. Wilbur vs.. Earl l.. Wilbur. Crue
and abusive treatment. Custody OF minor chill
to lbelant
Wright Il Wheeler.
Joseph Douglass vs.. Hattie e. Douglass. DE
sertion.
Perkins.
verna Smith VS.. Clinton T.. Smith. Cruel ant
abusive treatment and habits Of intOxication.
Stevenson.
Lizzie A. Cummings vs.. Charles Cummings
Habits OF intoxication, and cruel and abusive
treatment.
Coolidge.
Eta z. Thurlow VS.. Lyman d. Thurlow. Crue
and abusive treatment
| Bisbee Il Parker. Swasey.
Mary L. Dow VS.. Beecher Dow. Cruel anG
abusive treatment, and habits Of intoxication.
| Swasey.
Mertie Il. Darlington VS.. George Darlington
Cruel and abusive treatment and neglect to sup
port.
Swasey.