Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-10-29

ant The case went on trial before a
drawn jury of which C. E. Pierce Of Au-
gusta was foreman. j. P. Giroux of Wa
tervile was challenged by the plaintiff
and Ira Haskell of China and E. w, Lew
is of Sidney by the defendant and their
places on the panel were filled by other
jurors.
Attorney Coolidge in opening the case
for the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff
company had delivered to the Oakland
Wooden Co. shoddy to the amount of
$2S7OS9 and that the plaintiffs were re-
fused payment both by the Oakland
| Wooden Co. and by the defendant not
withstanding the guarantee of Mr.. Haines
regarding payment. Correspondence be-
tween Mr.. Haines and the plaintiffs in
regard to accounts with the Oakland
Wooden Co. was also read at the opening
Henry B. Barnet of Albany, N. Y,
member of the firm of William Barnet &
Son. testified that previous to June, 1905
he had sold goods to the Oakland Wooden
Co. Witness went to Bangor in conse-
quence of conversation with Supt. Lin
coin at the mill in Oakland and saw Mr.
Haines in the parlor of the Bangor House
Mr. Hanes guaranteed the accounts while
there verbally, saying Il will guarantee
all the accounts. My word is as good as
he would send the firm written guaran-
tee but witness was obliged to write Mr.
Haines before he received the guarantee.
The jury in the case of Osceolar Rob-
bins VS. Lewiston. Augusta & Watervile
St. Ry. at o'clock brought in verdict
for the plaintiff assessing damages in the
sum of $500. The case will go to the
law court on defendants exceptions and
motion for new trial.
The taking of testimony in the Barnet
Haines guarantee action was resumed af-
railway case. Correspondence between
the parties from July 6, 1898, to Nov. II,
1908, was admitted by counsel Mr. Bar
net testified that orders of goods were
sold the Oakland Wooden Co. solely upon
the guarantee of Mr.. Haines. The Oak
land Wooden Co. at the time witness had
the conversation with Mr.. Haines at
Bangor was owing the plaintiffs between
5000 and $500, none of which was includ-
ed in the accounts sued. None of the
goods sued for had been shipped but
some of them had been ordered at the
time of the conversation with Mr.. Haines
Witness stated on cross examination that
up to the time of his conversation with
Mr.. Haines he had done business with
Supt. Lincoln and the Oakland Manufac-
turing Co. Witness testified that Mr..
Lincoln did not request him to see MI.
Haines.
Witness further testified on cross-ex-
animation that his firm had received pay
ment of all accounts due at the time of
his conversation with Mr.. Haines. and
also payment for shipment of July 9.
Attorney Nelson in opening for the de-
fence denied that the guarantee was a
continuing one. The first witness called
by the defence was Charles I. Lincoln,
manager of the Oakland Wooden Mills.
Witness began business relations with
William Barnet & Son in 1906. Witness
asked Henry Barnet when he was at
Oakland in June, 1908, why he did not
ship certain goods and Barnet stated that
he could not ship them without the mon
ey. Barney asked witness if he supposed
Mr.. Haines would guarantee the payment
and witness told him that he did not
know.
William T. Haines of Waterville, the
defendant in the case, testified that he
stated to Henry Barnet at Bangor that
he would be responsible for the goods al
ready ordered by Mr. Lincoln and neces-
sary to complete the run. Witness after
wards sent a written guarantee to Mr..
Barnet There was nothing said about
future orders. Witness told Mr.. Barnet
that the Oakland Manufacturing Co. was
in hard shape and that Barnet knew it.
On DISCRIMINATION witness stated that
he remembered at all times that he had
given a guarantee to Mr.. Barnet, the
only question was the amount of the ac-
counts covered by the guarantee. Mr..
Haines further testified that he told Mr..
Barnet that the mill was bankrupt, but
if he had his guarantee it was good.
The case was taken from the jury at
the completion of the testimony by JUS
tice Cornish and will go to the law court
on report upon SO much of the evidence
as is legally admissible.