Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-09-13
Civil Matters and Divorce
! Cases Are Heard.
Verdict for Plaintiff In Read
field Farm Case.
Family Difficulties Involved In
Suit for Board Bill. II

civil and divorce cases, The trial OF
civil cases will be completed Monday
forenoon and all civil cases not other
twise assigned for trial at this term
Evil be in order at that time.
The first jury at the opening Of court
Saturday morning brought in verdict
of $73.76 for the plaintiff in the case
of George A. Pierce of Readfield VS..
Charles ]. Cole of the same town. in
which suit was brought to recover a
balance Of s259.20 alleged to be due
the plaintiff on account Of shortage of
hay and grain and damaged condition
of corn delivered by defendant. A mo-
ton for a new trial was filed by M. +.
Sawtelle, counsel for defendant. Joseph
| Williamson appeared for the plaintiff.
The first case to come up for trial
Saturday morning was that of Haley
l vs. Bunker. This is an action brought
by Joseph W. Haley of Biddeford
against Rhoden Bunker of Augusta to
recover the amount of s54 alleged to
beAdue for board from April 10, 1904, to
June 10, 1904 The defendant in set-off
| files bill for labor in April and July
| 1904, amounting to $50. Joseph William
son of Augusta appeared for plaintiff
| and George Emery of Biddeford for de-
| fendant. The case was tried before the
second jury.
| Mr.. Haley testified that Bunker,
who is a brother-in-law of his board
cd with him at Biddeford from April
| 10 to June 10, 1904, the defendant being
employed at the time at the summer
home OF a Mrs. Patterson near Bidde-
{or 1oi,
only work Bunker ever did about the
place was to occasionally milk a COW.
Plaintiff admitted on cross-examina-
ton that the suit against the defend
ant was begun in February, 1909, a
month after a divorce had been grant
ed to his sister. the wife of the plain
tiff. Plaintiff denied on cross examina-
ton that he ever told the defendant
that as Mrs. Patterson was not ready
to have him come to work until May
he might stay at his house during the
month of April and it wouldn't cost him
cent.
Frank e. Staples of Biddeford tes-
tilted that he did carpenter work about
the Patterson place in April and found
the defendant RhOden Bunker in
charge there. Bunker told him that he
was boarding lat Joe's," meaning at
Mr. Haley's.
Rhoden Bunker took the stand in his
own defence. He testified that he had
frequently visited his brother-in- law
at Biddeford and had paid no board.
Mr.. Haley had also visited at the home
of the defendant in Augusta previous
to his marriage to Mrs. Haley. Defend
l. l. II: 7 r
to work at the Patterson place that
Mrs. Patterson would. not arrive until
May. He Informed his brother-in-law
of the situation and plaintiff told wit
ness that if he would help him about
the work on the place during the
month of April it would not cost him
cent to stay with him. Witness board
ed and roomed during the months Of
May and June at the Patterson place
Mrs. Patterson sent food to him until
she came to occupy the house about
the middle of May. Witness was paid
81 a week and board for his services
there as eoachman. He gave up his job
there July and worked for his broth
er-in-law, helping him in haying. Wit
ness testified that the first time he ever
heard of Joseph Haley making any
claim fer board was when his wages at
the Edwards mill were trusteed in
February 1909.
Mrs. Marcia Haley sister of the de-
| PENDANT, testified that Mr.. Haley told
her brother in her presence that he
was Welcome to stay at the house dur
| ing the month of April and it wouldn' t
| cost him anything for board. Witness
testified that her brother helped MIR.
| Haley about the place, hauling kelp.
! milking cows and doing other work
| Witness further testified that from
April, 1904, until she left her husband S
! home she never once heard him say
/ that defendant owed him for board.
Mr.. Haley testified in rebuttal that
| the assistance which the defendant
rendered him in haying was on the
Patterson place and not on his own
place. The case was given to the Jury
at 1912 and the time until adjournment
for the noon recess was occupied in
toe hearing of a divorce case.
| The jury at the opening of court in
the afternoon brought in a verdict that
nothing was due either party, which
was practically verdict for the de-
PENDANT.