Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1909-05-18
Supreme Judicial Court.
NAY TERN, 1909.

The May term of Supreme Judicial
Court for Oxford County opened at
Rumford Tuesday, May II. Judge A.
R. Savage of Auburn presided, 10 place
of Chief Justice Emery, who had orig
inally been assigned to this term.
The first day was principally taken up
with calling the docket and making up
trial list.
Wednesday morning the juries were
empaneled, Henry j. Bangs OF Norway
being foreman Of the first jury, and
James R. Hill of Brownf1eld foreman OF
the second.
FARRAR vs. KING NoN.sUITED.
Immediately after the juries were en-
paneled work was begun upon the case
Of Farrar vs.. King. This was suit for
malpractice, brought by Wilbur L. Far
rar of South Paris, formerly deputy
sheriff and jailer, against DR.. Alfred
King of Portland. Without going into
the details of testimony of the several
witnesses, the evidence presented by the
plaintiff set out facts about thus:
On the Goth of October, 1907, Mr..
Farrar was taken suddenly and violently
In, and called in DR.. q. l.. Bartlett OF
Norway. DR.. Bartlett called In DR..
King, who was in South Paris village at
that time. They decided that an opera
ton should be performed for gall stones
at once, and this was done. The in
struments were procured from DR.. B. r.
| Bradbury of Norway, and he and DR.. D.
N. Stewart of South Paris with DR..
Bartlett, assisted at the operation, which
was performed by DR.. King. At the
close of the operation inquiry was made
az to whether all the pieces of gauze
were accounted for, and the nurse, Miss
Sawyer, replied all but one; then picking
| I'D one from the floor, she said that &C.
counted for all of them.
Mr.. Farrar did not recover, but con.
tinued to suffer severely, and on the 10th
OF December DR.. Cakes of Auburn was
called. He advised another operation,
which he performed.
Mr.. Farrar still continued very Ill and
suffering much, and finally was taken to
DR.. Cousens' private hospital In Port
land, where on the 9th of January, 1908,
DR.. John F. Thompson of Portland per-
formed q third operation. In doing
this he found and removed q piece Of
gauze, damp with pus and having a bad
odor. Mr.. Farrar Immediately began te
Improve, and was soon fully recovered
At the conclusion of the plaintiffs
evidence, which occupied less than q
day, the defence moved for non-suit
on the ground that DR.. King, as the
surgeon who performed the operation
with instruments and apparatus not BIZ
own, and with nurses not of his procur
ing, is not liable.
Judge Savage granted the motion for ,
non.suit. The case was appealed, and
will 90 to the law court.
Walter L. Gray, Esq, of South Paris
and Judge Enoch Foster OF Portland
were attorneys for Farrar. Gen. Mat
tocks of Portland and Bisbee & Parke
of Rumford for DR.. King.
ELLIOTT VS.. MCCARTHY.
The second case for the term, which
was opened Thursday morning, was
suit for defamation of character brough
BY Harris l.. Elliott of Rumford agains
Matthew Mccarthy of the same town
James B. Stevenson of Rumford AM
Hon. James s. Wright of South Pari
we're attorneys for the plaintiff, an,
Judge w. q. Newell of LIE vision for tn
defendant.
Mr.. Elliott is and has been for som
time C deputy sheriff at Rumford, an
Mr.. Mccarthy Is an attorney In the sam
town, and was the Democratic candidat
{ for county attorney in the campaign o
1908. The remarks on which the suit
based were made at Democratic politi
cal meeting at Rumford during tina
campaign, when Mr.. Mccarthy, In tn
course of his speech, alleged that liquo
was sold in -Rumford Falls In a numbe
of places with the connivance of tn
deputy sberiffs, and that on one particu
, lar occasion when Mr.. Elliott raided
number of the dealers, he had warne
them beforehand that the raids wer
about to be made, so that they were abb
to get their stock out of the way.
The defence was based upon tw
grounds: that the remarks made wer
I privileged as reasonable criticism of
public officer, and that they were true.
r A large list of witnesses were sum
! moned for the defence, including mum
! Der of those who have been convicted Q
violation of the liquor laws, to shov
/ that the "tip" of coming seizure hat
been passed around. The case went t
the jury Friday afternoon, and after cor
sidering it number of hours, the
sealed their verdict, and Saturday morn
ing reported verdict for the defendant
The case was Immediately appealed, an
, will % to the law court.
, The next case tried was that Of Bel
, nard Andrews of Canton against tn
Harper-Hoogin Co. of Lewiston.
was brought to recover balance elaine
for wood sold by the plaintiff to the d.
PENDANT company, in September, 1905
cut on land of the plaintiff In Byro
|, and shipped to Lewiston. The defent
ants refused to accept part of the shiI
I ment. Bisbee & Parker for plaintiff
, Newell & Shelton for defence.
1t is thought that the term will COZ
clude on Wednesday or Thursday of thi
week.