Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1907-10-15

| Harry B. McKeen, Stoneham. Foreman.
| A. A. Keen, Buckfleld.
Chester ii. Lane. Paris.
Jacob NJ. Ludden, Canton.
George b. McMennamin, Rumford.
| Henry n. Merrill, Hebron.
Frank A. Noble, Waterford.
| Frank E. Quint, Brownneld.
Herbert L. Ridlon, Porter.
Preston II. Spencer, Hiram.
Roscoe G. Stephens, sumner.
A. d. Thayer, Oxford.
sUPERSUNERARIEs.
Arthur s. Tucker, Rumford.
Elvern +. whitman, Woodstock.
A. ID. Wight, Gilead.
Arthur S. Tucker of Rumford, one of
the supernumeraries, was Immediately
excused from service.
As it appeared that nothing would be
ready for trial that day, the jurors were
all excused until Wednesday, and the
call of tue docket was taken up. This
| resulted in trial list of about twenty-five
cases, and at the afternoon session these
were assigned to the remaining days of
| the first week and Monday and Tuesday
of the second week.
The one case assigned for Wednesday
| was Norman S. Perry of Mexico vs.. the
American Gas and Gasoline Engine Co.
VI OItiduu. SWaocy iOi pidiutiu,
Wright 6 Wheeler for defendant. The
suit was to recover fifty dollars paid by
the plaintiff on the price of a gasoline
engine which, according to the plaintiffs
declaration, had not been delivered. At
the opening of court Wednesday morning
negotiations for settlement of the case
| were in progress, and after the court had
waited about three quarters of an hour,
it was disposed of by entering default
for fifty dollars.
As this was the only case for the day,
there was but little done on Wednesday.
REDDING VS.. SKILLINGS.
Thursday morning work was begun on
the case, Isabel S. Redding VS.. J. p.
Skillings. This was an action of tres
pass brought to recover for white birch
cut and other growth broken down and
destroyed by the defendant on land
claimed by the plaintiff, also for damage
done to growing crops of the plaintiff by
the defendants stock. Swasey for
plaintiff, Wright & Wheeler for de-
| PENDANT.
Mrs. Redding, the plaintiff, was for
| merly resident of that section in the
northwestern part of the town of Sum-
ner formerly generally known as Far
rar's Mills, now known as Redding, the
Redding family having occupied the
same farm for twenty-five years or more.
Since the suit was commenced, Mrs.
Redding has died, and the suit is now
prosecuted by her son and administrator,
John F. Redding.
In 1902, j. P. Skillings of Bethel, the
defendant, purchased the Freeman Far
rar farm, adjoining the Redding farm on
the east, and built there birch mill,
which he has since operated to some
extent. The cutting of birch complain
ed of in the writ was done in the year
1908, on land which is a part of the
pasture on the Redding farm, as it had
been used for many years, and which
was claimed as part of the Redding
farm. The amount cut was testified TO
as having been somewhere between fifty
and hundred cords.
1t is perhaps hardly necessary to state
further that this was cline case" the
real question being who was the real
owner of the land on which the birch
was cut. As in most such cases, the evil
dence presented not only included the
recollections of witnesses as to the occu-
pancy of the land, but also vast num-
Der of deeds, two or three surveyors
plans, and great deal of testimony relat-
| ing 10 monuments, spotted trees, stones,
fences, etc. In the course of the years
since Mr.. Skillings purchased the Farrar
farm and this cutting was done, two
surveyors, Henry Nelson of Rumford
Falls and w. H. JENNIE of Paris, have on
several different occasions done survey
ing, individually or together, for the par
ties to this suit, and have gone pretty
| well over the portion of the earth's sur
face which is in the vicinity of Redding.
Both these surveyors were witnesses in
the case. There was also long list of
deeds introduced, the plaintiff having
several to support the claim of that side
of the case, while the defence introduced
the record of chain of twelve or fifteen
deeds beginning with one of the original
proprietors of the town of Sumner under
the grant from Massachusetts,.
This case, though tried with thorough
preparation and great skill on both
sides, dragged its slow length along, as
such cases invariably do, and when
Thursday, Friday and Saturday had
been used up, and it was time for the
Saturday afternoon trains, the arguments
were Just finished. The jury was then
excused, and at the opening of court
Monday morning Judge Strout instruct
ed the jury, and the case was given to
them about IL o'clock.
Verdict for plaintiff, $500.
The grand jury made long days and
worked hard until Friday afternoon,
when they reported and were excused.
The following indictments were made
public, and it is understood that there
are quite number more in the list:
Wallace G. Everett of Paris. Murder.
Jesse s. Estes Of Woodstock. Breaking and
entering.
Louis Olum of Auburn. Receiving stolen
wilfred Ouilette and Louis Monchsmp of
| Rumford. Three indictments for breaking and
John Iobikis. Charles Pioplis and Mike Gus.
tits of Rumford. Two indictments for assault.
Philip DeCoteau Of Norway. Common seller,
and single sale.
Onofrio Montisano of Rumford. Nuisance.
| Ernest White of Rumford. Larceny.
| Giuseppe Regetano and Dominica Galati OF
R9%ford. Fsi0nious q ss SAUL 1.r..nv
| Adelard pargie Of Rumford. Larceny.
Roland McPhee of Rumford. Nuisance.
Charles Randall Of Hebron. Assault.
Dominick Laukshae and John Samilus OF
/ Rumford. Nuisance.
Vito Buccina and Gioussi Cocolie of Rumford
Nuisance.
Edmund Bowers and Charles vallee. Nui
| sance.
Fred E. Tucker. Nuisance.
Paul Ross. Nuisance.
| William M. Ross. Nuisance.
| W. p. Mcdonald. Nuisance.
Paul Procopio. Nuisance.
Daniel II. McCafferty. Nuisance.
Victor Losier and Joe Davis. Nuisance.
j. l.. LeClair. Illegal transportation.
Larry A. Roux. Forgery.
Divorces have been decreed in the fol
lowing cases:
Tina NJ. Thomas vs. Samuel D. Thomas. De