Oxford Democrat., 1908-10-20

Fred Weld, DiX1eld.
| Samuel |. Wheeler. Gilead.
George L. Wilder, Oxford.
Mark C. Allen of Woodstock, who bad
been drawn on the grand jury, was un
able to attend by reason of illness, ano
was excused.
Judge Bird addressed the grand jury
regarding their duties, his address being
not lengthy, but direct, and fully cover
ing the matter and manner Of their pro
cedure.
The traverse iuries were then empanel
ed as follows:
FIRST JURY.
Charles NJ Andrews. Oxford, Foreman.
Cullen Abbott, Woodstock.
Charles Brown, Upton.
George w. Brown. Hartford.
George A. Chandler, sumner.
Perley K Child, Peru.
Alfred V. Dow. Hiram.
j. NJ. Drown, Porter.
ii. W. Eastman, Lowell.
Writ V. Eaton, Brownfeld
Eugene Evans. Stoneham.
Albert G. Frost, Bethel.
SECOND JURY.
John +. Talbot, Andover, Foreman.
Albion X. Gon, Mexico.
Darwin b. Holman, DiNheld.
Henry ID. Z. Hutchins, Frye6urg.
Adelbert d. Littlehale, Paris.
Isaac J. Lothrop, Canton.
solomon II. Millett, Norway.
J. Ezra Morton, Rumford.
George W. Moulton, Denmark.
Charles Z. Packard. Waterford.
Edwin II. Smith, Bethel.
Albert W. Thomas, Norway.
sUPERSUMERARIEs.
Harry w. Bearce, Hebron.
James Z. Warren, Buckdeld.
&c pnr,fnrA q
excused by reason of illness, being un-
able to attend, and Charles II. Bates of
Paris and Daniel r. Cole of Greenwood
were excused for other reasons before
being empaneled, and Harry w. Bearce
of Hebron and Albert C. Frost of Bethel
after the empaneling was completed,
because of matters at their homes which
urgently required their presence.
The call of the docket occupied the
rest of the forenoon Tuesday. More
than the usual number of cases went of
the docket with one entry or another,
and the emphatic announcement "Trialr'
and the milder expression, "Put it on
the trial list" were heard very frequent,
ly, so that when the call was finished, a
trial list of phenomenal length, includ-
ing nearly sixty cases, had been made
up.
After dinner Tuesday Judge Bird
sprang rather a surprise on the bar.
From time immemorial it has been the
custom for the assingment of the cases
on the trial list to certain days to be
made by general conference of the
court and attorneys, consulting the con-
venience of the lawyers as to their re-
spective cases. They generally wish to
have their cases set down for the first of
the second week, with strong prefer
ence for Tuesday morning, and consider
able depends upon the executive ability
of the presiding justice in making the
assignments satisfactory.
In this instance Judge Bird took a
new departure. For the first few min
utes of the afternoon he sat with papers
and pencil in his hand, while the bar
waited. He then announced, 81 will
make the following assignments Of
cases for trial." and calmly read the
list, putting all the cases into the first
week.
Tho announcement brought most of
the attorneys to their feet, and some
Judge Bird changed the assignments
where good cause for doing so appeared,
three or four of the cases going into the
second week, and within half hour the
list was complete and satisfactory, and
the court was ready for the business of
the term.
HAZELTINE VS.. CANNON.
The first case tried, which was opened
after 3 o'clock Tuesday, and completed
that night, was Hannah F. Hazeltine VS..
Warren p. Cannon. Mrs. Hazeltine,
the plaintiff, is the widow of William +.
Hazeltine, former owner of house and
mill at West Denmark. After the death
of Mr.. Hazeltine, part of his heirs sold
their interest in the real estate to Mr..
Cannon, and this action was brought
to recover rent claimed for that share of
interest in the house and mill which be-
longed to Mrs. Hazeltine as the widow.
1t was alleged that be had agreed to
pay her at a fair rental from a certain
day in April, 1907, up to the time the
suit was brought. No evidence was put
in for the defence, the defendants coun-
sci cOntending that the plaintiff and de-
fendant were co-tenants, and that one
could not recover from the other under
the form of action in this case. A ver-
dict of S27.4S for the plaintiff was re-
turned. The case will go to the law
court.
The situation of the case as regards
the plaintiffs attorneys was little un-
usual. The case really originated with
E. Z. Hastings of Fryeburg, who was
Mrs. Hazeltine's attorney in other mat
ters, and drew the writ in this suit, but
as he would have to be a witness in this
case, he sent the writ to Walker & Pike
of Bridgton, and it was entered on the
docket as their case. 1t was tried for
the plaintiff by Hon. James S. Wright
of South Paris. The defendants attor-
ney was Henry Cleaves Sullivan of
Portland.
RUSSELL VS.. UMBsTAETTER.
Wednesday after waiting an hour OF
two for the arrival of the parties, work
was begun upon the case, Benjamin
Russell, Jr., VS.. Herman D. UmbstaetteI
and Nellie Umbstaetter, bis wife. The
plaintiff is carpenter and builder al
Lowell. The defendant, Mr.. Umbstaet
ter, is q summer resident in Lowell. Hi
home is in Boston, and he is the owner
of the magazine called the Black Cat.
The suit was brought by Wright &
Wheeler, and was conducted for the
plaintiff by Mr.. Wright. Walker & Pike
of Bridgton appeared as attorneys fol
the defence, and their case was conduct
ed by Judge Enoch Foster of Portland
The suit was brought to recover 9
balance claimed to be due Mr.. Russell
for work of repairs on the buildings or
the Cyrus Andrews farm at Lowell Cen
ter, purchased by Mr.. Umbstaetter ant
later transferred to Mrs. Umbstaetter
These repairs were made in the late fal
of 1905 and the spring of 1907, and in
cluded shingling and other repairs oil
the barn, moving boat house, building
i've house, aud other work. Mr. Umb
staetter in the course of the time hat
advanced Mr. Russell $3.50, and balanc,
was claimed by Mr.. Russell of S30154.
The defence Is that much OF the worl
was done in a very unworkmanlike man
ner, 80 that it had to be done over
For one item it is alleged that montl
since thirty places were counted in tn
shingling of the barn where dayligh
showed through, and in some of tn
nlacea n man,s hand could he MI